The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - August 04, 2019


Progress, Despite Everything


Episode Stats

Length

2 hours and 2 minutes

Words per Minute

150.19598

Word Count

18,470

Sentence Count

970

Misogynist Sentences

2

Hate Speech Sentences

17


Summary

Dr. Steven Pinker is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, and has taught at Stanford and MIT. He is an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations. Dr. Pinker grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and his PhD from Harvard. He s won numerous prizes for his research, his teaching, and his 9 books including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, and The Sense of Style. His 10th and best-selling book, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, was published in February 2018. He s an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, a two-time Pulitzer Prize Finalist, a humanist of the Year, a recipient of nine honorary doctorates, and one of the Times' 100 Most Influential people in the world today. He writes frequently for the New York Times, The Guardian, and other publications. And as you can imagine, he has some pretty controversial ideas in the past, such as: why men and women aren t all evil, and why we all harbor some unsavory motives like revenge and revenge. But there are more things that go right, and there's a radical, inflammatory hypothesis that turns out to be a better way of learning about the world than what goes wrong. And so much of what you get from the world that goes wrong, because there's no right, because it's just not right. In this episode of The Jordan Peterson Podcast, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson sits down with the Harvard Family Family Professor, and talks about it all the time, and tries to make sense of the world as he sees it. Hope you enjoy it, and it's very nice, by the way, and thanks very much for making the time. Thank you so much for being a good human being. -J.B. Peterson and Mikayla Peterson - The Jordan B Peterson Podcast - Season 2 Episode 20: Progress Despite Everything (featuring: Dr. Steven P. Pipper, The Good, the Bad, the Good, The Bad, and the Evil, the Ugly, the Great, the Things That Go Wrong, and Everything That Goes Wrong, by J.B.'s Conversation with Steven Pippin, PhD by Dr. Steve Pinker


Transcript

00:00:00.940 Hey everyone, real quick before you skip, I want to talk to you about something serious and important.
00:00:06.480 Dr. Jordan Peterson has created a new series that could be a lifeline for those battling depression and anxiety.
00:00:12.740 We know how isolating and overwhelming these conditions can be, and we wanted to take a moment to reach out to those listening who may be struggling.
00:00:20.100 With decades of experience helping patients, Dr. Peterson offers a unique understanding of why you might be feeling this way in his new series.
00:00:27.420 He provides a roadmap towards healing, showing that while the journey isn't easy, it's absolutely possible to find your way forward.
00:00:35.360 If you're suffering, please know you are not alone. There's hope, and there's a path to feeling better.
00:00:41.780 Go to Daily Wire Plus now and start watching Dr. Jordan B. Peterson on depression and anxiety.
00:00:47.460 Let this be the first step towards the brighter future you deserve.
00:00:57.420 Welcome to Season 2, Episode 20 of the Jordan B. Peterson Podcast.
00:01:03.480 I'm Mikayla Peterson, Dad's daughter and collaborator.
00:01:06.500 Weekly update, Mom is still stable, and we are still stressed out.
00:01:10.380 She's finally going home from the hospital next week.
00:01:12.900 That's about it for updates, to be honest.
00:01:14.980 Actually, I just tried Wagyu beef for the first time.
00:01:18.360 Not that that's an important update, but if you haven't tried A5 Wagyu, try it.
00:01:23.320 It's literally the best thing I've ever eaten. It was like eating chocolate. I almost cried.
00:01:28.780 Sorry, that's not an important update, but I was still excited about it. I've only been eating meat for so long.
00:01:33.940 Anyway, this week's episode, titled Progress Despite Everything, features Dr. Steven Pinker.
00:01:41.700 Steven Pinker is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University.
00:01:46.060 Dad's going to introduce him right away, so I won't give anything more away.
00:01:49.680 Hope you enjoy it. Dr. Steven Pinker is a very interesting human being.
00:01:54.440 When we return, Dad's conversation with Dr. Steven Pinker.
00:01:58.080 Progress Despite Everything.
00:02:08.360 I'm very pleased today to be talking to Dr. Steven Pinker from Harvard University.
00:02:15.400 He's the John Stone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology there, and has taught additionally at Stanford and MIT.
00:02:25.200 He's an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations.
00:02:33.260 Dr. Pinker grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and his PhD from Harvard.
00:02:39.020 He's won numerous prizes for his research, his teaching, and his nine books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, and The Sense of Style.
00:02:53.320 He's an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, a Humanist of the Year, a recipient of nine honorary doctorates, and one of Foreign Policy's world top 100 public intellectuals and Times' 100 most influential people in the world today.
00:03:14.020 He's chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and writes frequently for the New York Times, The Guardian, and other publications.
00:03:25.280 Enlightenment Now, The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, was his 10th and best-selling book, published in February 2018.
00:03:35.920 And it's very nice, by the way, to have the opportunity to speak with you again, and thanks very much for making the time.
00:03:42.940 Thank you, Jordan.
00:03:43.560 So, can I ask you, it's been about a year since we talked last, and I guess I'd like to ask you, first of all, personally, what's this year been like for you?
00:03:53.680 You've become a much more controversial figure, I would say, than would really be predicted.
00:04:00.520 Like, you've always seemed to me to be a solid, reliable, interesting, mainstream scientist, not someone who would attract a tremendous amount of critical attention, and yet you've become, well, oddly enough, associated with the intellectual dark web, whatever that happens to be.
00:04:23.540 And so much of what you're doing is controversial, and so what's that been like, and what's your life been like over the last while?
00:04:31.320 Yeah, you wouldn't think that a defense of reason, science, humanism, and progress would be incendiary, and I'm hardly a flamethrower.
00:04:39.300 And as you note, I have put forward some pretty controversial ideas in the past, such as that men and women aren't indistinguishable, that we all harbor some unsavory motives like revenge and dominance.
00:04:54.080 But saying that the world has gotten better turns out to be a radical, inflammatory hypothesis.
00:05:02.560 There's, first of all, just sheer incredulity, because the view of the world that you get from journalism is so different from the view of the world that you get from data, because journalism reports everything that goes wrong.
00:05:13.660 It doesn't report things that go right, and so if there are more things that go right every year, there's just no way of learning about it.
00:05:19.240 And so there's just sheer disbelief.
00:05:21.420 On top of that, there are intellectual factions that are committed to the idea that the world has never been worse than it is now, and data on human progress undermines some of their foundational beliefs, and so that does attract some opposition.
00:05:39.340 People think of it as a defense of neoliberal capitalism or a defense of the opposite, secular humanism, traditional liberalism.
00:05:48.140 And so it does get some people exercised.
00:05:53.040 Basically, anyone, if you're a social critic, if your reputation comes on saying what's going wrong about the current society, then you're kind of committed to the idea that things have gotten worse.
00:06:06.080 And the idea that things are not as bad as they used to be, not as bad as they could be, is an insult to that, those core beliefs.
00:06:15.040 Yeah, well, it's a surprising thing, because, well, so let's talk about that a little bit.
00:06:21.140 I mean, here's some of the things I know, I think I know, and maybe you could describe some of the things you know.
00:06:29.240 And, like, I started learning that the world had been improving when I worked for a UN committee about five years ago now, and started looking at the data on ecology and sustainable economic development.
00:06:43.800 And that's, like, there's some bad ecological news.
00:06:46.720 I think that what we're doing to the oceans is fundamentally unforgivable and foolish beyond belief.
00:06:54.020 But there's some ecological news that's of surprising positivity.
00:07:00.220 Like, there was a paper published in Nature not so long ago, stating, for example, that an area twice the size of the U.S. has greened in the last 15 years.
00:07:11.200 I think it was the last 15 or 20 years, and that actually happened to be as a consequence of increased carbon dioxide, because plants can keep their pores closed if there's more carbon dioxide, and so they can live in more semi-arid areas.
00:07:26.600 And there's more forests in the Northern Hemisphere than there were 100 years ago, and more forests in India and China than there were 30 years ago.
00:07:35.440 And then this has gone along with a massively improved standard of living.
00:07:41.200 And the child mortality rate in Africa is now the same as it was in Europe in 1952, which is a statistic that I just regard as absolutely miraculous.
00:07:53.860 The African economies are growing, sub-Saharan African economies seem to be growing faster at the moment, if the stats are reliable, than economies anywhere else in the world, partly because the Africans are getting connected electronically
00:08:08.160 and have access to reasonable information into something approximating, let's say, stable currency alternatives.
00:08:16.080 The rate of poverty is diminishing at an amazing rate, right?
00:08:25.180 We have poverty, considering it at $1.90 a day between 2000 and 2012, and I've read criticisms of that, saying, well, that was an arbitrary number.
00:08:35.620 But if you look at $3.80 a day, you see the same decline.
00:08:42.040 If you look at $7.60 a day, you see the same decline, not as precipitous.
00:08:46.360 And even the UN, not known, I would say, for its optimistic prognostications, estimates that at this rate, by the year 2030,
00:08:56.520 there won't be anyone in the world who's living below the current poverty level.
00:09:01.280 So there are some positive statistics.
00:09:05.080 So what would you like to add to that?
00:09:09.080 Oh, yes.
00:09:09.580 And all of those numbers are reported in graphs in Enlightenment now.
00:09:14.840 But also, what else?
00:09:17.420 Illiteracy is declining.
00:09:20.020 Rates of violent crime, including violence against women and children, are declining.
00:09:25.700 Child labor is declining.
00:09:27.600 Death and warfare is declining.
00:09:29.120 People have more leisure time.
00:09:31.640 They have more access to small luxuries like beer and affording our plane fare.
00:09:41.700 So it's funny that all of these examples of human progress, which one would think vindicate the attempt to make the world a better place.
00:09:52.200 It's not just do-gooding.
00:09:53.320 It's not romantic.
00:09:54.200 It's not utopian.
00:09:54.800 We really can improve the world if we set our minds to do it.
00:09:59.120 It should arouse so much anger, partly because people are so unused to thinking that things have gotten better that they confuse it with certain kinds of magical thinking,
00:10:11.900 such as that this must mean that there is a force in the universe that carries us ever upward, that just makes progress happen by itself, which is the exact opposite to reality.
00:10:23.200 The universe not only doesn't care.
00:10:24.200 The universe not only doesn't care about us, but has a number of features that are constantly pushing back at us, like entropy, like pathogens.
00:10:34.960 Entropy is a bad one.
00:10:36.840 Entropy is the root of all human suffering, ultimately.
00:10:41.880 I've read two other things that are peculiar, that are so interesting.
00:10:47.620 Well, okay, so first of all, it's pretty hard on the Marxists, I would say, because even though there is inequality, and inequality is a problem,
00:10:58.740 first of all, it doesn't look like inequality can be placed at the feet of capitalism.
00:11:03.600 It seems to me to be a far more intractable problem than that.
00:11:08.100 Second, it's clear that the poor are getting richer despite the fact of inequality.
00:11:14.060 And third, and this is hard on the environmentalists, I think, is that it turns out that if you get people's income up to about $5,000 a year in terms of gross domestic product,
00:11:25.120 they actually start to care about the environment, which I suppose is because they're not worried about dying instantly that day or that week.
00:11:34.180 And so, we seem to be in this perverse situation for a pessimist where we could make people wealthy and in a positive manner,
00:11:46.720 and we could make the world a better place simultaneously.
00:11:51.060 And that does seem to be very hard on ideologues whose ideology is predicated on a fundamental pessimism.
00:12:00.040 Or you get the other people, like the biologists do this sometimes, and say, well, yeah, we're purchasing all this short-term prosperity for these billions of people,
00:12:10.520 but at the cost of some medium to long-term eventual precipitous apocalyptic collapse.
00:12:17.740 And it's very difficult to formulate an argument against that kind of idea because, well, you never know when some...
00:12:25.180 I think this is one of the things Taleb takes you to task for, doesn't he?
00:12:30.280 Yes, even though I actually have pretty extensive coverage of tail risks, both in the better angels of our nature and in enlightenment now.
00:12:39.200 And indeed, we cannot take incremental improvement as itself an indication that the risk of catastrophes is at an acceptable level, and it may not.
00:12:52.640 It's very hard to estimate what the risk of a catastrophe is, but there are certainly some that we ought to take very seriously.
00:12:58.260 On the other hand, the facts that you mentioned are often resisted by people in the green movement.
00:13:06.000 But if anything, it should give hope and sucker to the environmental movement, because it shows that it is not true that we have to choose between economic growth,
00:13:16.560 which people do not want to give up, and protecting the environment, that we can have both.
00:13:21.420 And indeed, there are some ways in which they go together.
00:13:23.700 The nations that have done the most to clean up their environment in the last 10 years are the wealthiest nations, because they can afford it.
00:13:31.460 If you're dirt poor, as you mentioned, your first priority is putting food on the table and a roof over your head.
00:13:37.300 And the fate of the white rhinoceros is going to be pretty low on your list of priorities.
00:13:42.300 And you might be willing to put up with some smog in order to have electricity.
00:13:45.700 It's really awful to do without electricity.
00:13:47.260 And I know having visited cities like Mumbai, which are horribly polluted, and they are awful, but it would be much worse to not have any electricity.
00:13:56.920 But on the other hand, when you get more prosperous, then you're willing to spring for the cleaner energy, and you can afford the cleaner energy.
00:14:03.860 And as you mentioned, your values tend to climb a hierarchy, and more long-term future concerns loom larger in your value system.
00:14:14.420 So it's an odd assumption that both the hard right and the hard green have in common, which is that if we want to protect the environment, we have to sacrifice prosperity, go back to a simpler, more peasant style of life.
00:14:30.580 The hard greens say, well, we've got to give up modernity, give up capitalism, go back to living off the land.
00:14:38.320 The hard right says, well, I don't want to do that.
00:14:41.260 No one wants to do that.
00:14:42.280 So to hell with the environment.
00:14:43.320 The reality is that if both policy and technology are deployed intelligently, as they ought to be, then we can afford to protect the environment without going backwards and foregoing all of the benefits of modernity.
00:14:58.600 Right.
00:14:58.900 Well, I was shocked when I started to learn about this, the fact that there was so much good, both economic and ecological news.
00:15:09.020 With the economic news perhaps being somewhat better than the ecological news.
00:15:15.460 And it doesn't mean that we can sit back and relax and the environment will clean itself up all by itself.
00:15:21.120 Quite the contrary.
00:15:22.240 We know why the environment got better.
00:15:24.160 Combination of policy like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act in the United States in 1970.
00:15:28.620 And technology like catalytic converters and scrubbers and clean energy.
00:15:34.240 So it doesn't happen by itself.
00:15:35.520 The fact that it happens, this is one of the great fallacies in people's understanding of progress.
00:15:39.960 That they equate the existence of progress with progress happening all by itself as if it was some force of the universe, which is contrary to reality.
00:15:49.900 The other, you mentioned that the existence of human progress is a blow to doctrinaire Marxists, which is certainly true because we have seen the spectacular economic growth of India and China when they liberalized their economies.
00:16:05.800 And the disasters of, say, North Korea with a beautiful control group, South Korea, same geography, same resources, same culture, same language, same history.
00:16:18.340 What differentiates them is their political system.
00:16:20.960 And South Korea is a much better place to live.
00:16:23.160 It's not only freer, but it is also enormously more prosperous.
00:16:28.280 Yes, well, I'm going to debate Slavoj Zizek on the 19th of April, and I've been preparing for that, you know, and I thought what I might do to begin with is list.
00:16:39.940 There's a graph that I think humanprogress.org put out.
00:16:44.420 It might be Matt Ridley's graph, or maybe Hans, is it Hans Rosling?
00:16:49.820 Rosling?
00:16:50.820 It may be.
00:16:51.960 Mariam Tupi is the proprietor of human progress.
00:16:54.340 But it's what they call the most miraculous, most important graph in the world, which shows this unbelievable acceleration of human prosperity, basically kicking in exponentially around 1895.
00:17:07.700 Yes, a little bit earlier, but this is a combination of data sources, including a late historical economist named Angus Madison, who began the Madison Project,
00:17:17.740 trying to retrospectively estimate GDP per capita in eras where they did not collect those data at the time, but using historical data.
00:17:28.180 Yes, it is astonishing.
00:17:29.360 And I've got to say, when I first saw that curve, when I was working on Better Angels of Our Nature, I was stunned.
00:17:35.120 I mean, this is the original hockey stick.
00:17:37.200 Yes.
00:17:37.600 You know, I look at that and I think, well, look, I mean, what's the issue here?
00:17:41.560 We still have inequality, but you can't put it at the feet of capitalism, because it seems to be a much more fundamental mechanism.
00:17:49.100 Well, at least poverty, certainly, yes.
00:17:51.220 Yes.
00:17:51.840 Well, and even inequality.
00:17:53.760 I mean, there seems to be this proclivity towards the unequal distribution of phenomena, not just monetary phenomena.
00:18:02.540 But I mean, if you look in virtually every domain of human endeavor that's associated with creativity, you get a Pareto distribution of productivity.
00:18:12.980 You know, I mean, a small number of basketball players shoot the vast majority of the hoops, and a small number of record recording artists record the majority of the hits.
00:18:25.960 A small number of planets have most of the mass, and like, there is this, I mean, I'm not trying to make a case that inequality isn't a problem.
00:18:36.160 I'm trying to make a case that it's a way deeper problem than the Marxists presume.
00:18:40.500 And then you have the other problem that, well, the poor keep getting richer.
00:18:44.440 I mean, half the world is middle class now, and obesity is a bigger problem than starvation.
00:18:49.960 I'm really having a hard time trying to understand what the Marxists have left as a doctrine.
00:18:57.700 It's like, well, the problem you guys were identifying seems to not exist anymore.
00:19:03.420 Yeah, so part of it is that their foil is a kind of Ayn Randian objectivism in which you have a pure, untrammeled, unconstrained market capitalism with no regulation and no social safety net.
00:19:22.920 Now, one of the discoveries that I made, which was almost as surprising as the hockey stick graph of prosperity,
00:19:30.820 is the fact that in the 20th century, every developed country, every rich country, went on a spree of social spending.
00:19:38.560 And so that from a baseline of about 1.5% of GDP redistributed to children and the poor and the elderly and the sick.
00:19:47.640 Now, the median OECD country redistributes about 22% of its prosperity.
00:19:53.980 And all rich countries are in a band from about 20% of GDP to about 30% of GDP.
00:20:00.720 The United States is at the low end.
00:20:02.400 And actually, Canada, to my surprise, our home and native land is actually a bit lower than the United States.
00:20:08.460 I still have people figure that out, even though Canada would appear to have a more generous welfare state than the United States.
00:20:14.320 And in fact, the United States would be even higher if you added all of the socialism that is done through employers,
00:20:20.660 like retirement and health insurance, which in other countries is done through the government.
00:20:24.960 But even if we just looked at government redistribution, there just does not exist a wealthy country without an extensive social safety net.
00:20:34.280 For a number of reasons.
00:20:34.920 So here's the theory.
00:20:36.520 Tell me what you think about this.
00:20:38.600 So I've been trying to, let's say, steel man the positions of the left.
00:20:46.180 I don't mean the radical left.
00:20:47.560 I mean the moderate left, because I believe that the dialogue between the moderate left and the moderate right is what keeps our ship stabilized, essentially.
00:20:57.020 And for this reason.
00:20:58.680 So imagine people have to group together cooperatively and competitively to solve difficult problems, because we have difficult problems.
00:21:09.400 That's entropy, let's say, and the assault of the natural world.
00:21:13.460 So we have to group together.
00:21:14.700 When we do that, we create hierarchies, and we do that in large part, we hope, by elevating those who are the most competent at solving the problems to the higher positions in the hierarchies.
00:21:27.380 Now, that can be contaminated by power and tyranny and crookedness and poor selection and all of that, poor measurement.
00:21:34.240 But fundamentally, if your hierarchy is functional, the more competent people rise to the top.
00:21:40.800 Now, that produces the advantage of solving the problem, but it produces the disadvantage of making a lot of people stack up at the bottom of that hierarchy, because that's what tends to happen, because of the Pareto distribution and the built-in proclivity for inequality.
00:22:00.640 So the answer to that seems to be, well, we produce the hierarchies, we accept the inequality, but then we attend with some degree of clarity of vision and care to those who are dispossessed by the necessity of the hierarchies.
00:22:16.720 And your claim seems to be, from what you just said, is that that's essentially what we've been doing in civilized democracies for the last hundred years, and that that seems to be roughly working.
00:22:28.520 Well, it is, yes, that's right.
00:22:31.200 Now, whether or not the hierarchies are optimal in the sense that we're better off with a hierarchy, because of just what will happen in a distributed market economy, you may have winner-take-all situations where the most entertaining story, the most efficient car, the best washing machine in a global market will push out a lot of the competitors.
00:22:56.200 And so you get that Pareto distribution.
00:22:58.640 Whether or not anyone would have designed it if they were to plan the entire society might even be beside the point.
00:23:05.220 As long as you don't have central planning and distribution, it might naturally result if it is not explicitly opposed, which some of our policies do.
00:23:16.080 As you mentioned, it's a little bit like environmental progress in that far from being in opposition to economic growth, it's often economic growth that lets people become more munificent, more generous.
00:23:32.940 There are a number of reasons why every wealthy country has a social safety net and why, as countries get richer, like Brazil and India and China, they turn their attention to more social welfare.
00:23:46.660 The European and North American societies did it in the 20th century, and the developing world is following suit.
00:23:55.540 Partly, it's because some of the redistribution is investment.
00:24:00.820 It's a public good.
00:24:01.840 It's really good if the entire population is educated for everyone, including the people who are hiring them.
00:24:08.720 And so some of it is just investment in public goods.
00:24:12.120 Okay, so that's another interesting take on the Marxist position, because the funny thing is, is that, you know, you lived in Montreal.
00:24:21.200 I lived in Montreal.
00:24:22.980 Montreal is a relatively flat city in some sense in terms of its economic distribution.
00:24:29.860 Like, there are no pockets of terrifying poverty, at least on the island.
00:24:34.540 And it's a very safe place.
00:24:37.000 And so it's socially rich in some sense.
00:24:40.060 Like, I always felt wealthy when I lived in Montreal, even though I was living on a PhD's stipend, which was very low.
00:24:48.920 Probably the area we used to call the student ghetto, which now has luxury condominiums.
00:24:53.620 Right, right.
00:24:54.360 But what was so lovely about Montreal was that it was safe, it was beautiful, and it had an unbelievably vibrant public culture.
00:25:04.500 And that was all a consequence of the fact that people, generally speaking, were well enough off.
00:25:12.780 And so, you know, if you contrast that with a country like Brazil, where a tiny minority of people have all the wealth,
00:25:20.500 well, they're stuck with the problem of living in gilded prisons.
00:25:23.820 They have to move their children around in helicopters.
00:25:26.640 And, like, I think one of the things that people realize as societies become richer is that it's better to calculate your wealth on a broader level,
00:25:38.460 to include more people within the purview of what constitutes wealth for you.
00:25:43.040 Because it's so nice to be in a city that's thriving and healthy and not crime-ridden and resentful.
00:25:53.020 And those need to be factored in as elements of individual wealth.
00:25:57.400 That's right.
00:25:57.800 And there is a debate among social scientists as to whether it is inequality that drives these other social goods,
00:26:06.200 such as low crime, such as public investment, such as education, or whether it's prosperity.
00:26:12.540 It's not so easy to tell them apart because, in general, poorer countries like South Africa and Brazil have sky-high inequality.
00:26:20.680 Countries like Norway and Sweden and Switzerland, which have less inequality, are also pretty rich.
00:26:26.300 And it isn't so easy to see which one is driving it.
00:26:30.600 Because as societies get richer, as we've discussed, they tend to redistribute partly out of investing in a public good,
00:26:39.480 such as lower crime, such as having an educated populace, which is just a really good thing.
00:26:46.080 Partly, it is literally insurance.
00:26:48.160 And the euphemism social safety net, that is something that captures you if you fall,
00:26:52.980 captures the idea that even when people are well off, they worry that they're there but for fortune go I,
00:26:59.500 that you've got to be nice to people on the way up because you might need them on the way down.
00:27:03.620 And so putting a bottom, a floor, on how poor you can be makes everyone feel a little more secure
00:27:12.000 that if the worst thing happened, they would not be destitute.
00:27:14.980 It's not that uncommon for people who are in the top 10%, say, of the economic distribution,
00:27:22.400 or even in the top 1% to suffer a substantial...
00:27:25.620 Welcome to Season 2, Episode 20 of the Jordan B. Peterson Podcast.
00:27:35.080 I'm Mikayla Peterson, Dad's daughter and collaborator.
00:27:38.080 Weekly update, Mom is still stable and we are still stressed out.
00:27:41.980 She's finally going home from the hospital next week.
00:27:44.480 That's about it for updates, to be honest.
00:27:46.580 Actually, I just tried Wagyu beef for the first time.
00:27:50.220 Not that that's an important update, but if you haven't tried A5 Wagyu, try it.
00:27:54.920 It's literally the best thing I've ever eaten.
00:27:57.700 It was like eating chocolate.
00:27:59.040 I almost cried.
00:28:00.360 Sorry, that's not an important update, but I was still excited about it.
00:28:03.480 I've only been eating meat for so long.
00:28:05.500 Anyway, this week's episode, titled Progress Despite Everything,
00:28:11.000 features Dr. Steven Pinker.
00:28:13.240 Steven Pinker is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University.
00:28:17.640 Dad's going to introduce him right away, so I won't give anything more away.
00:28:21.600 Hope you enjoy it.
00:28:22.480 Dr. Steven Pinker is a very interesting human being.
00:28:26.020 When we return, Dad's conversation with Dr. Steven Pinker.
00:28:29.640 Progress Despite Everything.
00:28:35.060 Going online without ExpressVPN is like not paying attention to the safety demonstration on a flight.
00:28:41.320 Most of the time, you'll probably be fine,
00:28:43.480 but what if one day that weird yellow mask drops down from overhead and you have no idea what to do?
00:28:48.860 In our hyper-connected world, your digital privacy isn't just a luxury.
00:28:52.980 It's a fundamental right.
00:28:54.300 Every time you connect to an unsecured network in a cafe, hotel, or airport,
00:28:58.540 you're essentially broadcasting your personal information to anyone with a technical know-how to intercept it.
00:29:03.600 And let's be clear, it doesn't take a genius hacker to do this.
00:29:06.820 With some off-the-shelf hardware, even a tech-savvy teenager could potentially access your passwords,
00:29:11.940 bank logins, and credit card details.
00:29:13.880 Now, you might think, what's the big deal?
00:29:16.320 Who'd want my data anyway?
00:29:17.860 Well, on the dark web, your personal information could fetch up to $1,000.
00:29:22.280 That's right, there's a whole underground economy built on stolen identities.
00:29:26.520 Enter ExpressVPN.
00:29:28.220 It's like a digital fortress, creating an encrypted tunnel between your device and the internet.
00:29:32.960 Their encryption is so robust that it would take a hacker with a supercomputer over a billion years to crack it.
00:29:38.560 But don't let its power fool you.
00:29:40.420 ExpressVPN is incredibly user-friendly.
00:29:42.420 With just one click, you're protected across all your devices.
00:29:45.800 Phones, laptops, tablets, you name it.
00:29:48.000 That's why I use ExpressVPN whenever I'm traveling or working from a coffee shop.
00:29:52.120 It gives me peace of mind knowing that my research, communications, and personal data are shielded from prying eyes.
00:29:58.100 Secure your online data today by visiting expressvpn.com slash jordan.
00:30:02.860 That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash jordan, and you can get an extra three months free.
00:30:09.260 ExpressVPN.com slash jordan.
00:30:12.420 As a homeowner, some of the most tedious and easily forgotten maintenance tasks are often the most important.
00:30:19.360 Take gutter cleaning.
00:30:20.660 It's one of those out-of-sight, out-of-mind chores that can lead to serious issues if neglected.
00:30:25.720 LeafFilter offers an investment engineered to protect your whole home.
00:30:29.820 Clogged gutters aren't just a nuisance.
00:30:31.860 They can cause extensive repairs, costing thousands of dollars, and causing major headaches.
00:30:36.540 LeafFilter's patented technology is designed to take care of everything from start to finish, making the process hassle-free for homeowners.
00:30:44.080 Their professionals will clean out, realign, and seal your existing gutters before installing the LeafFilter system, ensuring optimal performance from day one.
00:30:52.780 Plus, every installation comes with a free inspection, estimate, and lifetime guarantee.
00:30:57.160 By choosing LeafFilter, you're not just solving a maintenance problem, you're investing in your home's long-term health and your own peace of mind.
00:31:04.540 Protect your home and never clean out your gutters again with LeafFilter, America's number one protection system.
00:31:10.600 Schedule your free inspection and get up to 30% off your entire purchase at leaffilter.com slash build.
00:31:16.140 That's a free inspection and up to 30% off at leaffilter.com slash build.
00:31:22.160 See representative for warranty details.
00:31:24.220 Promotion is 20% off plus a 10% senior or military discount.
00:31:27.900 One discount per household.
00:31:34.020 I'm very pleased today to be talking to Dr. Steven Pinker from Harvard University.
00:31:41.080 He's the John Stone family professor in the Department of Psychology there and has taught additionally at Stanford and MIT.
00:31:50.900 He's an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations.
00:31:58.980 Dr. Pinker grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and his PhD from Harvard.
00:32:04.720 He's won numerous prizes for his research, his teaching, and his nine books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, and The Sense of Style.
00:32:19.000 He's an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, a Humanist of the Year, a recipient of nine honorary doctorates, and one of Foreign Policy's world top 100 public intellectuals and Times' 100 most influential people in the world today.
00:32:39.700 He's chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary and writes frequently for the New York Times, The Guardian, and other publications.
00:32:50.940 Enlightenment Now, The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, was his 10th and best-selling book, published in February 2018.
00:33:01.620 And it's very nice, by the way, to have the opportunity to speak with you again, and thanks very much for making the time.
00:33:08.260 Thank you, Jordan.
00:33:09.280 So, can I ask you, it's been about a year since we talked last, and I guess I'd like to ask you, first of all, personally, what's this year been like for you?
00:33:19.380 You've become a much more controversial figure, I would say, than would really be predicted.
00:33:26.200 Like, you've always seemed to me to be a solid, reliable, interesting, mainstream scientist, not someone who would attract a tremendous amount of critical attention, and yet you've become, well, oddly enough, associated with the intellectual dark web, whatever that happens to be.
00:33:49.240 And so much of what you're doing is controversial, and so what's that been like, and what's your life been like over the last while?
00:33:56.340 Yeah, you wouldn't think that a defense of reason, science, humanism, and progress would be incendiary, and I'm hardly a flamethrower.
00:34:05.000 And as you note, I have put forward some pretty controversial ideas in the past, such as that men and women aren't indistinguishable, that we all harbor some unsavory motives like revenge and dominance.
00:34:19.780 But saying that the world has gotten better turns out to be a radical, inflammatory hypothesis.
00:34:28.260 There's, first of all, just sheer incredulity, because the view of the world that you get from journalism is so different from the view of the world that you get from data, because journalism reports everything that goes wrong.
00:34:39.360 It doesn't report things that go right, and so if there are more things that go right every year, there's just no way of learning about it.
00:34:44.940 And so there's just sheer disbelief.
00:34:47.120 On top of that, there are intellectual factions that are committed to the idea that the world has never been worse than it is now, and data on human progress undermines some of their foundational beliefs, and so that does attract some opposition.
00:35:05.020 People think of it as a defense of neoliberal capitalism or a defense of the opposite, secular humanism, traditional liberalism.
00:35:13.840 And so it does get some people exercised.
00:35:18.740 Basically, anyone, if you're a social critic, if your reputation comes on saying what's going wrong about the current society, then you're kind of committed to the idea that things have gotten worse.
00:35:31.780 And the idea that things are not as bad as they used to be, not as bad as they could be, is an insult to that, those core beliefs.
00:35:40.760 Yeah, well, it's a surprising thing, because, well, so let's talk about that a little bit.
00:35:46.840 I mean, here's some of the things I know, I think I know, and maybe you could describe some of the things you know.
00:35:55.260 And, like, I started learning that the world had been improving when I worked for a UN committee about five years ago now,
00:36:03.000 and started looking at the data on ecology and sustainable economic development, and that's, like, there's some bad ecological news.
00:36:12.580 I think that what we're doing to the oceans is fundamentally unforgivable and foolish beyond belief.
00:36:19.700 But there's some ecological news that's of surprising positivity.
00:36:25.640 Like, there was a paper published in Nature not so long ago, stating, for example, that an area twice the size of the U.S. has greened in the last 15 years.
00:36:37.000 I think it was last 15 or 20 years.
00:36:39.320 That actually happened to be as a consequence of increased carbon dioxide, because plants can keep their pores closed if there's more carbon dioxide,
00:36:48.560 and so they can live in more semi-arid areas.
00:36:52.040 And there's more forests in the Northern Hemisphere than there were 100 years ago, and more forests in India and China than there were 30 years ago.
00:37:01.220 And then this has gone along with a massively improved standard of living.
00:37:07.380 The child mortality rate in Africa is now the same as it was in Europe in 1952, which is a statistic that I just regard as absolutely miraculous.
00:37:18.800 The African economies are growing, sub-Saharan African economies seem to be growing faster at the moment, if the stats are reliable,
00:37:27.100 than economies anywhere else in the world, partly because the Africans are getting connected electronically
00:37:33.840 and have access to reasonable information into something approximating, let's say, stable currency alternatives.
00:37:41.740 The rate of poverty is diminishing at an amazing rate, right?
00:37:50.880 We have poverty considering it at $1.90 a day between 2000 and 2012, and I've read criticisms of that, saying, well, that was an arbitrary number.
00:38:01.300 But if you look at $3.80 a day, you see the same decline.
00:38:07.800 If you look at $7.60 a day, you see the same decline, not as precipitous.
00:38:12.060 And even the UN, not known, I would say, for its optimistic prognostications, estimates that at this rate, by the year 2030,
00:38:22.160 there won't be anyone in the world who's living below the current poverty level.
00:38:26.980 So, there are some positive statistics.
00:38:30.780 So, what would you like to add to that?
00:38:34.760 Oh, yes.
00:38:35.280 And all of those numbers are reported in graphs in Enlightenment now.
00:38:40.540 But also, what else?
00:38:43.120 Illiteracy is declining.
00:38:45.720 Rates of violent crime, including violence against women and children, are declining.
00:38:51.380 Child labor is declining.
00:38:53.260 Death and warfare is declining.
00:38:54.820 People have more leisure time.
00:38:57.320 They have more access to small luxuries like beer and affording a plane fare.
00:39:07.380 So, it's funny that all of these examples of human progress, which one would think vindicate the attempt to make the world a better place.
00:39:17.880 It's not just do-gooding.
00:39:19.020 It's not romantic.
00:39:19.900 It's not utopian.
00:39:20.500 We really can improve the world, if we set our minds to do it, should arouse so much anger, partly because people are so unused to thinking that things have gotten better, that they confuse it with certain kinds of magical thinking, such as that this must mean that there is a force in the universe that carries us ever upward, that just makes progress happen by itself, which is the exact opposite to reality.
00:39:48.900 The universe.
00:39:49.900 The universe not only doesn't care about us, but has a number of features that are constantly pushing back at us, like entropy, like pathogens.
00:40:00.660 Entropy is a bad one.
00:40:02.540 Entropy is the root of all human suffering, ultimately.
00:40:07.580 I've read two other things that are peculiar, that are so interesting.
00:40:13.340 Well, okay, so first of all, it's pretty hard on the Marxists, I would say, because even though there is inequality, and inequality is a problem, first of all, it doesn't look like inequality can be placed at the feet of capitalism.
00:40:29.300 It seems to me to be a far more intractable problem than that, second, it's clear that the poor are getting richer despite the fact of inequality, and third, and this is hard on the environmentalists, I think, is that it turns out that if you get people's income up to about $5,000 a year in terms of gross domestic product, they actually start to care about the environment, which I suppose is because they're not worried about dying instantly that day or that week.
00:40:59.280 And so, we seem to be in this perverse situation for a pessimist, where we could make people wealthy and in a positive manner, and we could make the world a better place simultaneously, and that does seem to be very hard on ideologues whose ideology is predicated on a fundamental pessimism.
00:41:25.660 Or you get the other people, like, the biologists do this sometimes, and say, well, yeah, we're purchasing all this short-term prosperity at, you know, for these billions of people, but at the cost of some medium to long-term eventual precipitous, you know, apocalyptic collapse, and it's very difficult to formulate an argument against that kind of idea, because, well, you never know when some...
00:41:50.880 I think this is one of the things Taleb takes you to task for, doesn't he?
00:41:55.000 Yes, even though I actually have pretty extensive coverage of tail risks, both in the better angels of our nature and in enlightenment now.
00:42:05.780 And indeed, we cannot take incremental improvement as itself an indication that the risk of catastrophes is at an acceptable level, and it may not.
00:42:17.600 It's very hard to estimate what the risk of a catastrophe is, but there are certainly some that we ought to take very seriously.
00:42:24.460 On the other hand, the facts that you mentioned are often resisted by people in the green movement, but if anything, it should give hope and sucker to the environmental movement,
00:42:36.840 because it shows that it is not true that we have to choose between economic growth, which people do not want to give up, and protecting the environment, that we can have both.
00:42:47.120 And indeed, there are some ways in which they go together.
00:42:50.000 The nations that have done the most to clean up their environment in the last 10 years are the wealthiest nations, because they can afford it.
00:42:57.060 If you're dirt poor, as you mentioned, your first priority is putting food on the table and a roof over your head, and the fate of the white rhinoceros is going to be pretty low on your list of priorities.
00:43:08.000 And you might be willing to put up with some smog in order to have electricity.
00:43:11.400 It's really awful to do without electricity, and I know having visited cities like Mumbai, which are horribly polluted, and they are awful, but it would be much worse to not have any electricity.
00:43:22.180 But on the other hand, when you get more prosperous, then you're willing to spring for the cleaner energy, and you can afford the cleaner energy.
00:43:29.580 And as you mentioned, your values tend to climb a hierarchy, and more long-term future concerns loom larger in your value system.
00:43:40.420 So it's an odd assumption that both the hard right and the hard green have in common,
00:43:45.960 which is that if we want to protect the environment, we have to sacrifice prosperity, go back to a simpler, more peasant style of life.
00:43:56.260 The hard greens say, well, we've got to give up modernity, give up capitalism, go back to living off the land.
00:44:04.020 The hard right says, well, I don't want to do that.
00:44:06.960 No one wants to do that, so to hell with the environment.
00:44:09.020 The reality is that if both policy and technology are deployed intelligently, as they ought to be, then we can afford to protect the environment without going backwards and foregoing all of the benefits of modernity.
00:44:24.280 Right.
00:44:24.500 Well, I was shocked when I started to learn about this, the fact that there was so much good, both economic and ecological news,
00:44:35.340 with the economic news perhaps being somewhat better than the ecological news.
00:44:41.180 And it doesn't mean that we can sit back and relax and the environment will clean itself up all by itself.
00:44:46.800 Quite the contrary.
00:44:47.940 We know why the environment got better.
00:44:49.720 Combination of policy, like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act in the United States in 1970,
00:44:54.880 and technology, like catalytic converters and scrubbers and clean energy.
00:44:59.940 So it doesn't happen by itself.
00:45:01.200 The fact that it happens, this is one of the great fallacies in people's understanding of progress,
00:45:05.640 that they equate the existence of progress with progress happening all by itself,
00:45:10.060 as if it was some force of the universe, which is contrary to reality.
00:45:15.600 The other, you mentioned that the existence of human progress is a blow to doctrinaire Marxists,
00:45:24.420 which is certainly true because we have seen the spectacular economic growth of India and China
00:45:29.480 when they liberalized their economies.
00:45:31.960 And the disasters of, say, North Korea with a beautiful control group, South Korea,
00:45:38.940 same geography, same resources, same culture, same language, same history.
00:45:44.060 What differentiates them is their political system, and South Korea is a much better place to live.
00:45:48.840 It's not only freer, but it is also enormously more prosperous.
00:45:54.660 I'm going to debate Slavoj Žižek on the 19th of April, and I've been preparing for that.
00:46:01.640 And I thought what I might do to begin with is list – there's a graph that I think humanprogress.org put out.
00:46:10.100 It might be Matt Ridley's graph, or maybe Hans – is it Hans Rosling?
00:46:15.520 Rosling?
00:46:16.520 It may be.
00:46:17.660 Mariam Tupi is the proprietor of human progress.
00:46:20.040 But it's what they call the most miraculous, most important graph in the world,
00:46:24.360 which shows this unbelievable acceleration of human prosperity basically kicking in exponentially around 1895.
00:46:33.380 Yes, a little bit earlier, but this is a combination of data sources,
00:46:37.080 including a late historical economist named Angus Madison, who began the Madison Project,
00:46:43.340 trying to retrospectively estimate GDP per capita in eras where they did not collect those data at the time,
00:46:52.280 but using historical data.
00:46:53.880 Yes, it is astonishing, and I've got to say, when I first saw that curve,
00:46:57.160 when I was working on Better Angels of Our Nature, I was stunned.
00:47:00.820 I mean, this is the original hockey stick.
00:47:02.860 Yes.
00:47:03.280 You know, I look at that, and I think, well, look, I mean, what's the issue here?
00:47:07.240 We still have inequality, but you can't put it at the feet of capitalism,
00:47:11.360 because it seems to be a much more fundamental mechanism.
00:47:14.820 Well, at least poverty, certainly, yes.
00:47:16.920 Yes.
00:47:17.520 Well, and even inequality.
00:47:19.460 I mean, there seems to be this proclivity towards the unequal distribution of phenomena,
00:47:25.320 not just monetary phenomena.
00:47:28.240 But, I mean, if you look in virtually every domain of human endeavor that's associated with creativity,
00:47:35.440 you get a Pareto distribution of productivity.
00:47:38.280 You know, I mean, a small number of basketball players shoot the vast majority of the hoops,
00:47:45.520 and a small number of record recording artists record the majority of the hits.
00:47:51.940 A small number of planets have most of the mass.
00:47:55.300 And, like, there is this, I mean, I'm not trying to make a case that inequality isn't a problem.
00:48:01.680 I'm trying to make a case that it's a way deeper problem than the Marxists presume.
00:48:06.280 And then you have the other problem that, well, the poor keep getting richer.
00:48:10.140 I mean, half the world is middle class now, and obesity is a bigger problem than starvation.
00:48:16.040 I'm really having a hard time trying to understand what the Marxists have left as a doctrine.
00:48:23.380 It's like, well, the problem you guys were identifying seems to not exist anymore.
00:48:29.080 Yeah, so part of it is that their foil is a kind of Ayn Randian objectivism
00:48:37.620 in which you have a pure, untrammeled, unconstrained market capitalism
00:48:45.080 with no regulation and no social safety net.
00:48:49.040 And one of the discoveries that I made, which was almost as surprising
00:48:52.980 as the hockey stick graph of prosperity, is the fact that in the 20th century,
00:48:58.660 every developed country, every rich country, went on a spree of social spending.
00:49:04.800 And so that from a baseline of about 1.5% of GDP redistributed to children and the poor
00:49:11.820 and the elderly and the sick.
00:49:13.340 Now the median OECD country redistributes about 22% of its prosperity.
00:49:19.080 And all rich countries are in a band from about 20% of GDP to about 30% of GDP.
00:49:26.420 The United States is at the low end.
00:49:28.740 Actually, Canada, to my surprise, our home and native land is actually a bit lower
00:49:33.100 than the United States.
00:49:34.160 I still have people figure that out, even though Canada would appear to have
00:49:37.480 a more generous welfare state than the United States.
00:49:40.320 And in fact, the United States would be even higher if you added all of the socialism
00:49:44.400 that is done through employers, like retirement and health insurance,
00:49:48.820 which in other countries is done through the government.
00:49:50.980 But even if we just looked at government redistribution,
00:49:53.640 there just does not exist a wealthy country without an extensive social safety net.
00:49:59.980 For a number of reasons.
00:50:00.620 So here's the theory.
00:50:02.220 Tell me what you think about this.
00:50:03.900 So I've been trying to, let's say, steel man the positions of the left.
00:50:11.920 I don't mean the radical left.
00:50:13.340 I mean the moderate left.
00:50:14.600 Because I believe that the dialogue between the moderate left and the moderate right
00:50:18.240 is what keeps our ship stabilized, essentially.
00:50:22.700 And for this reason.
00:50:24.360 So imagine people have to group together cooperatively and competitively
00:50:31.280 to solve difficult problems, because we have difficult problems.
00:50:35.100 That's entropy, let's say, and the assault of the natural world.
00:50:39.160 So we have to group together.
00:50:40.740 When we do that, we create hierarchies.
00:50:43.040 And we do that in large part, we hope, by elevating those who are the most competent
00:50:49.140 at solving the problems to the higher positions in the hierarchies.
00:50:52.900 Now that can be contaminated by power and tyranny and crookedness and poor selection
00:50:58.020 and all of that, poor measurement.
00:51:00.000 But fundamentally, if your hierarchy is functional, the more competent people rise to the top.
00:51:06.620 Now that produces the advantage of solving the problem.
00:51:11.540 But it produces the disadvantage of making a lot of people stack up at the bottom of that hierarchy.
00:51:18.260 Because that's what tends to happen because of the Pareto distribution
00:51:22.040 and the built-in proclivity for inequality.
00:51:26.820 So the answer to that seems to be, well, we produce the hierarchies,
00:51:31.440 we accept the inequality, but then we attend with some degree of clarity of vision and care
00:51:38.120 to those who are dispossessed by the necessity of the hierarchies.
00:51:42.340 And your claim seems to be, from what you just said,
00:51:45.340 is that that's essentially what we've been doing in civilized democracies for the last hundred years.
00:51:51.280 And that that seems to be roughly working.
00:51:54.420 Well, it is, yes.
00:51:56.420 That's right.
00:51:56.900 Now, whether or not the hierarchies are optimal,
00:52:01.160 in the sense that we're better off with the hierarchy,
00:52:03.760 because of just what will happen in a distributed market economy,
00:52:09.400 you may have winner-take-all situations where the most entertaining story,
00:52:15.280 the most efficient car, the best washing machine,
00:52:18.620 in a global market will push out a lot of the competitors.
00:52:22.300 And so you get that Pareto distribution.
00:52:24.360 Whether or not anyone would have designed it if they were to plan the entire society
00:52:29.100 might even be beside the point.
00:52:30.900 As long as you don't have central planning and distribution,
00:52:33.440 it might naturally result if it is not explicitly opposed,
00:52:39.980 which some of our policies do.
00:52:41.760 As you mentioned, it's a little bit like environmental progress,
00:52:47.840 in that far from being in opposition to economic growth,
00:52:51.960 it's often economic growth that lets people become more munificent, more generous.
00:52:59.080 There are a number of reasons why every wealthy country has a social safety net,
00:53:03.420 and why, as countries get richer, like Brazil and India and China,
00:53:07.760 they turn their attention to more social welfare.
00:53:14.440 The European and North American societies did it in the 20th century,
00:53:18.600 and the developing world is following suit.
00:53:21.220 Partly, it's because some of the redistribution is investment.
00:53:26.500 It's a public good.
00:53:27.220 It's really good if the entire population is educated for everyone,
00:53:31.200 including the people who are hiring them.
00:53:34.220 And so some of it is just investment in public goods.
00:53:38.300 That's another interesting take on the Marxist position,
00:53:42.480 because the funny thing is that, you know, you lived in Montreal.
00:53:46.900 I lived in Montreal.
00:53:48.620 Montreal is a relatively flat city in some sense,
00:53:53.680 in terms of its economic distribution.
00:53:55.400 Like, there are no pockets of terrifying poverty, at least on the island.
00:54:00.240 And it's a very safe place.
00:54:02.780 And so it's socially rich in some sense.
00:54:05.840 Like, I always felt wealthy when I lived in Montreal,
00:54:08.280 even though I was living on a PhD's stipend, which was very low.
00:54:15.180 The area we used to call the student ghetto, which now has luxury condominiums.
00:54:19.320 Right, right.
00:54:19.940 But what was so lovely about Montreal was that it was safe, it was beautiful,
00:54:26.220 and it had an unbelievably vibrant public culture.
00:54:30.680 Yes.
00:54:30.840 That was all a consequence of the fact that people, generally speaking, were well enough off.
00:54:38.260 And so, you know, if you contrast that with a country like Brazil,
00:54:42.760 where a tiny minority of people have all the wealth,
00:54:46.180 well, they're stuck with the problem of living in gilded prisons.
00:54:49.840 They have to move their children around in helicopters.
00:54:52.320 And, like, I think one of the things that people realize as societies become richer
00:54:58.820 is that it's better to calculate your wealth on a broader level,
00:55:04.160 to include more people within the purview of what constitutes wealth for you.
00:55:08.940 Because it's so nice to be in a city that's thriving and healthy
00:55:14.500 and not crime-ridden and resentful.
00:55:18.720 And those need to be factored in as elements of individual wealth.
00:55:22.920 That's right.
00:55:23.500 And there is a debate among social scientists as to whether it is inequality
00:55:29.560 that drives these other social goods, such as low crime,
00:55:33.740 such as public investment, such as education, or whether it's prosperity.
00:55:38.400 It's not so easy to tell them apart,
00:55:40.140 because, in general, poorer countries like South Africa and Brazil have sky-high inequality.
00:55:46.360 Countries like Norway and Sweden and Switzerland, which have less inequality,
00:55:50.380 are also pretty rich.
00:55:52.000 And it isn't so easy to see which one is driving it.
00:55:56.300 Because as societies get richer, as we've discussed,
00:55:59.960 they tend to redistribute partly out of investing in a public good,
00:56:05.180 such as lower crime, such as having an educated populace is just a really good thing.
00:56:11.760 Partly, it is literally insurance.
00:56:13.840 And the euphemism social safety net, that is something that captures you if you fall,
00:56:18.680 captures the idea that even when people are well off,
00:56:21.480 they worry that there but for fortune go I,
00:56:25.200 that you've got to be nice to people on the way up,
00:56:28.000 because you might need them on the way down.
00:56:29.320 And so, putting a bottom, a floor on how poor you can be
00:56:35.380 makes everyone feel a little more secure,
00:56:37.880 that if the worst thing happened, they would not be destitute.
00:56:40.680 It's not that uncommon for people who are in the top 10%, say,
00:56:46.240 of the economic distribution, or even in the top 1%,
00:56:49.560 to suffer a substantial reversal of fortune at some point in their life.
00:56:55.360 And it's a very rare person, a very, very rare person,
00:56:58.700 who isn't at economic danger of economic disadvantage
00:57:03.440 at some point in their life for some reason.
00:57:06.320 Well, certainly people move in and out of the top decile,
00:57:09.540 top 10% of the income distribution.
00:57:11.940 Although, this argument for social spending
00:57:15.340 would be to indemnify people against the worst outcome.
00:57:18.600 I don't think that many people in the top 10%,
00:57:20.660 or to say nothing of the top 1%, will ever go on welfare.
00:57:23.460 But still, a lot of people in the middle class can imagine it,
00:57:26.560 and they don't want to think that they'll be out on the street
00:57:28.460 if they lose their job,
00:57:30.120 or if they suddenly suffer a big medical expense.
00:57:33.720 And the third reason, after investment and insurance,
00:57:37.520 is just compassion or empathy.
00:57:39.920 We see in the history of the West,
00:57:43.460 after the Industrial Revolution,
00:57:45.460 you get a literature of compassion for the poor.
00:57:50.100 You have the little match girl,
00:57:53.160 you have Les Misérables,
00:57:54.680 and Jean Valjean being in prison
00:57:56.180 for stealing a bit of bread to save his sister.
00:57:59.160 You have the Jodes bearing grandpa
00:58:03.120 on the side of Route 66 in Grapes of Wrath.
00:58:07.560 And so people are also moved by sheer fellow feeling
00:58:11.740 with their compatriots, their fellow citizens.
00:58:15.400 Maybe that's another reason why the people
00:58:18.260 who are criticizing your informed optimism are irritated.
00:58:24.320 Because, you know,
00:58:25.460 if your fundamental political doctrine insists that,
00:58:29.440 well, your primary identity is your group,
00:58:34.740 whatever that happens to be,
00:58:36.160 and the primary motivating factor
00:58:42.000 for the function of your group
00:58:43.640 is raw, naked power
00:58:45.800 played out within that group against all other groups,
00:58:49.580 the introduction of something like the notion
00:58:51.820 of an implicit compassion for the downtrodden
00:58:55.620 seems to, like, wreak havoc
00:58:58.180 with the purity of that ideological position.
00:59:00.840 But, like, I've never met anyone in my life,
00:59:03.240 and I know a large number of extraordinarily successful,
00:59:07.760 economically successful people.
00:59:09.680 I've never met anyone in my life
00:59:11.920 who walks down the street
00:59:14.560 and sees a down-and-out alcoholic
00:59:16.380 who's clearly suffering terribly
00:59:19.320 as a consequence of dwelling on the street.
00:59:22.040 What would you say?
00:59:23.340 Celebrate the justice of the universe
00:59:26.040 in elevating them above that person who's suffering.
00:59:30.820 I mean, we do know from social psychology
00:59:33.260 that there is a tendency
00:59:34.840 to blame the victim,
00:59:38.320 to believe that in a just world.
00:59:40.760 So I think those are two motives that we have,
00:59:44.500 compassion for everyone,
00:59:46.040 but also a feeling that those who are badly off
00:59:50.100 must have done something to deserve it.
00:59:53.100 We do see this, of course,
00:59:54.300 in the surveys that you and I have both.
00:59:55.780 Well, you see a tension there,
00:59:57.400 because, of course...
00:59:58.020 You see a tension.
00:59:58.800 I think that's right.
00:59:59.360 And it's a reasonable tension.
01:00:01.640 It's also modulated
01:00:02.680 by some degree of ethnic solidarity.
01:00:06.420 And it's been noted
01:00:07.000 that some of the generous welfare states of Europe
01:00:09.480 have at least historically occurred
01:00:11.720 in countries that are ethnically more homogeneous,
01:00:15.600 certainly racially more homogeneous
01:00:17.120 than the United States,
01:00:18.440 which tends to be somewhat stingier.
01:00:20.920 Now, this is not...
01:00:22.480 There is some elasticity
01:00:23.800 into what we cognitively categorize as our group.
01:00:26.960 And one of the great achievements
01:00:28.740 of any kind of nation-building
01:00:30.060 is to instill a feeling,
01:00:33.280 well, we're all Canadians,
01:00:34.380 or we're all Swiss,
01:00:36.120 or we're all Iraqi,
01:00:37.980 something that has actually not happened in Iraq,
01:00:40.100 which is a big problem.
01:00:41.940 Unless you have that fictional family,
01:00:45.240 that fictional clan of the nation,
01:00:47.560 then people tend not to cooperate,
01:00:49.760 including in ways of providing social welfare
01:00:53.800 for the worst off.
01:00:55.020 And in the United States...
01:00:56.720 That's a ridiculously interesting point,
01:00:58.940 I would say,
01:00:59.520 because one of the things
01:01:01.220 that you really see in Canada,
01:01:03.160 for example,
01:01:04.020 and our prime minister
01:01:05.160 is a real devotee of this idea,
01:01:07.220 is that there really is no Canadian culture.
01:01:10.420 There's no central Canadian ethos.
01:01:13.120 And what we have
01:01:13.860 is a plurality
01:01:14.920 of multicultural microcosms,
01:01:17.740 and that that's actually all for the best.
01:01:20.380 The Canadian mosaic
01:01:21.760 as opposed to the melting pot
01:01:23.160 is a very important idea.
01:01:24.400 Right.
01:01:24.700 Although the prime minister's father,
01:01:26.920 Pierre Elliott Trudeau,
01:01:28.780 famously tried to forge
01:01:30.240 a kind of Canadian identity
01:01:31.640 that spanned English,
01:01:33.740 the Anglophone,
01:01:34.520 and Francophone communities,
01:01:36.060 partly exemplified in himself,
01:01:38.060 because he was a dashing,
01:01:39.540 charismatic figure
01:01:40.300 who was distinctively Canadian.
01:01:42.260 He just wasn't French.
01:01:43.020 He wasn't French.
01:01:43.900 He wasn't American.
01:01:45.120 He had the rose in his lapel.
01:01:46.520 He wore a cape.
01:01:47.540 He was perfectly bilingual.
01:01:49.100 He was debonair
01:01:50.260 and witty and charming.
01:01:51.620 We all felt at the time,
01:01:52.680 I remember this.
01:01:53.400 I remember Trudeau mania.
01:01:55.040 We all felt,
01:01:55.820 now that is a Canadian.
01:01:57.160 That's something to aspire to.
01:01:58.600 And he did,
01:01:59.460 with his policies
01:02:00.340 and with his symbolism,
01:02:02.020 forge a kind of Canadian consciousness
01:02:03.920 above and beyond
01:02:04.960 the mosaic
01:02:05.820 of the Lebanese Canadians
01:02:07.540 and the Italian Canadians,
01:02:09.120 Jewish Canadians,
01:02:10.020 and so on.
01:02:10.640 Well, and with sufficient,
01:02:12.420 what would you call it,
01:02:13.780 success to at least
01:02:14.820 keep the country together,
01:02:16.520 which was something
01:02:17.160 quite remarkable.
01:02:18.560 Well, he had to,
01:02:19.380 at one point,
01:02:19.840 he had to declare
01:02:20.300 martial law to do it.
01:02:21.660 Yes.
01:02:22.180 During the October crisis,
01:02:23.460 when separatist terrorists
01:02:25.840 kidnapped
01:02:26.480 a trade commissioner
01:02:28.460 and a government minister.
01:02:30.680 Right.
01:02:31.640 Right.
01:02:31.980 A dark day for Canada.
01:02:33.720 Well, so,
01:02:34.120 so look,
01:02:34.620 it looks like
01:02:35.120 there's a contradiction,
01:02:37.200 maybe,
01:02:37.640 and you can tell me
01:02:38.380 what you think about this
01:02:39.340 in a certain element
01:02:41.740 of leftist doctrine,
01:02:43.160 because assuming that
01:02:45.200 multiculturalism
01:02:46.540 can be reasonably viewed
01:02:49.040 as part of the leftist doctrine.
01:02:51.760 If it is the case
01:02:53.240 that people are more likely
01:02:54.880 to be generous
01:02:55.980 to those that they see
01:02:58.100 in some sense
01:02:59.240 as their in-group,
01:03:00.940 then what it suggests
01:03:02.280 is that you need to take
01:03:03.640 the mosaic
01:03:05.000 of your culture,
01:03:07.380 the African Canadians
01:03:09.640 and the European Canadians
01:03:11.900 and the Asian Canadians,
01:03:13.280 the same in the U.S.,
01:03:14.780 and have them
01:03:16.600 maintain their culture
01:03:19.460 and their traditions,
01:03:21.080 but also to embed them
01:03:23.660 inside a broader game
01:03:26.480 that constitutes
01:03:28.140 the national identity
01:03:29.600 that unites them all
01:03:31.740 despite their differences.
01:03:33.140 And it seems like,
01:03:35.580 given what you just described,
01:03:37.800 that unless you can
01:03:39.060 forge that
01:03:41.120 trans-ethnic
01:03:43.860 or trans-racial identity,
01:03:46.440 that you motivate people
01:03:48.600 to be less generous
01:03:51.320 in their social policies.
01:03:54.220 Well, that is true,
01:03:55.460 and I consider this
01:03:56.580 to be one of the key ideas
01:03:59.160 of coming out
01:04:00.640 of the Enlightenment,
01:04:01.920 opposed by the
01:04:03.000 counter-enlightenment
01:04:03.980 of the 19th century
01:04:05.060 by the Romantics
01:04:06.080 and maybe the Nationalists,
01:04:08.880 that a state,
01:04:12.840 a group of people
01:04:13.980 under the jurisdiction
01:04:14.940 of a government,
01:04:15.980 are held together
01:04:16.600 basically by a social contract,
01:04:18.660 by an agreement
01:04:19.240 that we're all in this together,
01:04:20.500 there are many public goods
01:04:21.940 that we share,
01:04:23.380 public costs
01:04:23.980 that we can suffer.
01:04:24.720 a government
01:04:25.800 that allows us
01:04:28.080 to get along
01:04:29.820 by serving
01:04:30.520 in our interests
01:04:31.800 is a way of improving
01:04:32.920 our welfare,
01:04:34.200 which is a very different
01:04:34.820 conception of a nation
01:04:36.060 than the blood-and-soil
01:04:37.620 nationalism
01:04:38.220 of the 19th century
01:04:40.420 continuing well
01:04:41.420 into the 20th,
01:04:42.940 that what makes us
01:04:43.640 a nation
01:04:44.060 is that we're all
01:04:45.220 white,
01:04:46.800 we all speak,
01:04:47.300 we come from
01:04:48.480 the same ancestry,
01:04:50.800 and that the successful nations
01:04:52.680 are often ones
01:04:53.360 that manage to forge
01:04:54.680 this somewhat
01:04:55.100 artificial identity.
01:04:56.960 So that's also fascinating
01:04:58.540 because then,
01:04:59.240 okay,
01:04:59.480 then we got two arguments
01:05:00.960 here for that,
01:05:02.460 for that,
01:05:03.180 let's say,
01:05:05.440 artificial
01:05:06.040 or conceptual
01:05:07.360 nation-building
01:05:08.540 process.
01:05:10.400 One is that
01:05:11.580 maybe you could
01:05:13.280 allow people
01:05:14.000 in their different
01:05:14.920 ethnic and racial groups
01:05:16.300 to maintain
01:05:16.880 key elements
01:05:17.860 of their identity
01:05:18.720 and feel comfortable
01:05:21.460 doing so,
01:05:22.300 but also embed them
01:05:23.800 in a broader game
01:05:25.060 voluntarily played
01:05:26.160 and laid out.
01:05:27.520 Exactly.
01:05:28.500 By the same token,
01:05:30.080 given your logic,
01:05:31.680 that's also the most
01:05:32.940 effective antidote
01:05:34.160 to the kind of nationalism
01:05:35.540 that is identitarian
01:05:38.040 that also seems
01:05:39.120 to be in the resurgence.
01:05:41.240 And you see this,
01:05:42.420 I really see this
01:05:43.640 as having been done
01:05:45.060 extraordinarily effectively
01:05:46.360 in the United States.
01:05:47.620 Now,
01:05:47.740 they had the advantage
01:05:48.660 of the examples
01:05:49.980 of England
01:05:50.480 and France,
01:05:51.780 but the American
01:05:53.060 experiment
01:05:54.560 was an experiment
01:05:56.540 in conceptual
01:05:57.540 nation-building.
01:05:59.540 It's like,
01:05:59.940 here's a set of principles
01:06:01.280 that we can all
01:06:02.820 agree on
01:06:03.560 despite our differences.
01:06:05.220 And to the degree
01:06:05.960 that we decide
01:06:06.820 that we will agree
01:06:07.680 on these principles,
01:06:09.180 then we're
01:06:10.240 the same enough.
01:06:11.840 We can cooperate.
01:06:12.820 We don't need to revert
01:06:13.820 to nationalism
01:06:14.800 or...
01:06:15.920 Very much.
01:06:16.580 In the Declaration
01:06:17.440 of Independence,
01:06:18.060 that was made crystal clear
01:06:19.540 that to pursue
01:06:20.740 life, liberty,
01:06:22.400 and pursuit of happiness,
01:06:23.540 governments are formed
01:06:24.500 with the consent
01:06:25.460 of the governed
01:06:26.100 to allow people
01:06:27.320 to flourish,
01:06:28.900 to prosper.
01:06:29.580 Nothing in the Declaration
01:06:30.500 said anything
01:06:31.260 about being European,
01:06:32.560 being white,
01:06:33.260 being Protestant,
01:06:34.220 being Christian.
01:06:35.200 It was really
01:06:36.280 a social contract
01:06:37.880 set up
01:06:38.900 for first principles,
01:06:40.320 which, of course,
01:06:41.220 they had some
01:06:42.000 pretty big problems
01:06:42.840 with, of course,
01:06:43.440 the African citizens.
01:06:44.760 It took quite a while
01:06:45.720 to work that out.
01:06:46.860 And there were tensions
01:06:47.680 in the 20th century
01:06:49.420 with ways of immigration
01:06:50.740 from Ireland,
01:06:52.740 from Eastern Europe,
01:06:54.300 from Jews,
01:06:56.200 from Italians.
01:06:57.060 And there were,
01:06:57.620 of course,
01:06:57.820 tensions between
01:06:58.660 the Italians
01:06:59.700 and the Irish.
01:07:00.780 But by the standards
01:07:02.080 of human history,
01:07:02.840 they got worked out
01:07:03.520 pretty well.
01:07:04.000 I think capitalizing
01:07:05.300 on a feature
01:07:05.800 of our psychology,
01:07:07.000 which is that even though
01:07:07.840 we do have
01:07:08.960 an in-group favoritism,
01:07:11.140 we do have tribalism,
01:07:12.720 what counts as a tribe
01:07:13.740 is pretty elastic.
01:07:15.560 It is not by skin color.
01:07:17.900 We form coalitions
01:07:19.480 that cut across skin color.
01:07:21.420 And a successful country
01:07:23.340 is one that capitalizes
01:07:25.220 on that elasticity
01:07:26.540 to form a virtual tribe,
01:07:29.680 which is simply
01:07:30.300 every citizen of the country.
01:07:32.100 And then ultimately,
01:07:33.080 every citizen
01:07:33.680 in larger units,
01:07:35.060 including the humanity,
01:07:37.100 including all the world.
01:07:39.040 A lot of this depends
01:07:39.880 well on undermining
01:07:41.020 certain features
01:07:41.720 of human nature,
01:07:42.620 such as kin solidarity.
01:07:44.720 And it's been noted
01:07:45.400 that in cultures
01:07:46.440 that have a lot
01:07:47.020 of cousin marriage,
01:07:48.340 where you're related
01:07:49.340 to people in your clan,
01:07:51.760 it's rather hard
01:07:52.600 to do nation building there,
01:07:54.300 like in Iraq,
01:07:56.240 for example.
01:07:56.700 people don't have a sense
01:07:58.280 of superordinate loyalty
01:08:00.260 to a coalition
01:08:01.260 about their blood relatives
01:08:03.100 and they are tightly tied
01:08:04.660 to blood relatives
01:08:05.640 by a cousin marriage.
01:08:07.640 But this also played itself
01:08:08.620 out in the history
01:08:09.240 of the United States.
01:08:10.280 And there's a wonderful
01:08:11.020 snatch of dialogue
01:08:12.300 at the end
01:08:12.820 of the first Godfather movie
01:08:14.540 when Michael Corleone
01:08:16.040 enlists after Pearl Harbor.
01:08:19.380 And his brother's son,
01:08:20.580 he says,
01:08:20.860 what, did you go to college
01:08:21.660 to get stupid?
01:08:22.300 Your country ain't your blood.
01:08:24.000 You're going to die out.
01:08:24.900 You're going to be a sap
01:08:26.180 who dies for strangers.
01:08:28.120 And that is a perfect
01:08:29.380 encapsulation
01:08:31.460 of the difference
01:08:32.220 between traditional tribalism
01:08:34.560 and the mentality
01:08:37.260 that we need
01:08:37.960 for a successful world.
01:08:38.840 Right.
01:08:39.180 Well, so it sounds like
01:08:40.180 it's, you know,
01:08:40.720 it sounds like one of the ways
01:08:41.940 to combat
01:08:43.420 right-wing identitarianism,
01:08:46.340 that the new emergence
01:08:47.380 of right-wing identitarianism
01:08:48.940 is to make that
01:08:49.820 conceptual distinction
01:08:51.120 between national identity
01:08:53.380 that's predicated on
01:08:54.760 blood and soil,
01:08:56.340 let's say,
01:08:56.880 kinship,
01:08:57.680 direct kinship,
01:08:58.940 or even secondary kinship,
01:09:02.060 and these more abstract conceptions.
01:09:04.980 Now, it seems to me,
01:09:06.520 so just,
01:09:07.400 you may know this
01:09:09.660 or you may not,
01:09:10.520 but Ben Shapiro's new book
01:09:12.920 is number one
01:09:14.200 on the New York Times
01:09:15.140 bestseller list.
01:09:16.920 And I read Ben's book
01:09:18.140 a while back,
01:09:18.920 and I think it shares
01:09:20.600 some features
01:09:21.620 with your book,
01:09:23.040 and it shares some features
01:09:24.240 with my book.
01:09:25.680 And I would say
01:09:26.820 the features it shares
01:09:27.780 with my book
01:09:28.540 is that I stress
01:09:30.240 the importance
01:09:31.380 of the Judeo-Christian
01:09:33.660 stories
01:09:34.860 as part of that
01:09:37.460 conceptual substructure
01:09:39.120 that unites a civilization.
01:09:41.960 And then it has features
01:09:44.080 in common with your book
01:09:45.360 because it's also
01:09:46.280 a pro-enlightenment manifesto
01:09:50.380 celebrating the achievements,
01:09:53.140 let's say,
01:09:53.520 of the Greeks
01:09:54.160 and the rationalists
01:09:55.300 moving forward
01:09:56.260 from there.
01:09:57.000 Like Shapiro
01:09:57.800 sees our culture as,
01:09:59.640 and this is something
01:10:00.580 that I agree with,
01:10:01.600 I would say,
01:10:02.140 as a marriage
01:10:02.900 between that Judeo-Christian tradition
01:10:04.900 and that
01:10:05.540 emergent enlightenment.
01:10:07.360 your emphasis,
01:10:13.720 so let's say
01:10:14.780 that we're playing
01:10:15.700 this abstract conceptual game
01:10:18.360 that unites us
01:10:19.480 as a people
01:10:20.200 independent of our ethnicity
01:10:21.620 and our race.
01:10:22.500 And there are principles
01:10:24.900 that constitute
01:10:27.240 the game rules
01:10:28.400 for that agreement.
01:10:29.700 And you see those
01:10:30.880 as primarily
01:10:32.060 deriving
01:10:33.300 from the enlightenment
01:10:34.760 and starting then.
01:10:38.320 Well, not,
01:10:39.240 I mean,
01:10:39.540 there's nothing new
01:10:40.320 under the sun
01:10:40.880 and certainly
01:10:41.420 some of the enlightenment ideas
01:10:42.640 had precursors
01:10:44.240 of the Renaissance
01:10:46.240 and in ancient Greece.
01:10:47.880 But that set of ideas
01:10:48.900 that came together then
01:10:50.240 needed, of course,
01:10:51.160 further elaboration.
01:10:52.500 I think that
01:10:53.260 that's much more
01:10:54.000 of a basis
01:10:55.300 of human progress
01:10:56.460 than the Judeo-Christian tradition.
01:10:58.820 Again,
01:10:59.320 every intellectual movement
01:11:03.080 draws from
01:11:04.240 pre-existing ideas
01:11:05.720 and movements.
01:11:06.320 And so there was
01:11:06.900 some cherry-picking
01:11:08.420 from the Judeo-Christian tradition.
01:11:11.340 But it certainly
01:11:12.520 did not depend
01:11:13.200 on belief
01:11:13.880 in Jesus Christ,
01:11:15.280 our Savior.
01:11:15.880 It did not depend
01:11:16.600 on one God
01:11:18.200 as opposed to many gods.
01:11:19.640 It really depended
01:11:20.240 on human well-being,
01:11:21.800 life, liberty,
01:11:22.320 and the pursuit
01:11:22.800 of happiness.
01:11:23.500 That's something
01:11:23.900 you can believe in
01:11:24.700 regardless of your
01:11:25.480 theological commitments.
01:11:26.860 So what do you think,
01:11:28.400 so here's the question
01:11:30.940 I have about that,
01:11:32.240 is that,
01:11:32.980 like,
01:11:33.460 it seemed to me,
01:11:34.560 so that the people
01:11:37.060 who formulated
01:11:37.880 the Declaration of Independence,
01:11:39.400 for example,
01:11:41.020 accepted as self-evident
01:11:42.860 that human beings
01:11:44.040 were intrinsically valuable
01:11:46.420 and the locus
01:11:48.420 and the locus
01:11:48.440 of sovereignty
01:11:49.880 insofar as they were
01:11:51.460 the citizens
01:11:52.620 who would determine
01:11:53.760 the course of the nation.
01:11:55.580 And there's some recognition there,
01:11:57.580 as far as I'm concerned,
01:11:58.800 of intrinsic value
01:12:01.880 outside of a rational argument.
01:12:04.760 You know,
01:12:05.600 as an a-priori presupposition,
01:12:09.520 we accept these truths
01:12:10.740 as self-evident, right?
01:12:11.980 And the most fundamental truth
01:12:16.400 of that is that
01:12:17.260 it's something like,
01:12:18.880 in my view,
01:12:20.900 it's something like
01:12:22.040 the strange metaphysical
01:12:24.480 equivalence of man
01:12:26.920 before God,
01:12:28.040 the fact that we all
01:12:29.100 have intrinsic value.
01:12:31.660 And that's where I see
01:12:32.960 the Enlightenment
01:12:33.900 being irreducibly
01:12:36.340 embedded inside
01:12:38.660 this underlying structure.
01:12:41.160 And that's different
01:12:42.240 than the idea of progress,
01:12:43.620 which is something
01:12:44.160 that you're focusing on
01:12:46.480 and that I think
01:12:47.540 is more attributable
01:12:49.760 to the development,
01:12:51.260 let's say,
01:12:51.580 of science and technology.
01:12:53.400 But it still seems to me
01:12:55.820 that the Enlightenment
01:12:57.980 had to have
01:12:59.040 an understructure
01:13:00.460 that enabled it to emerge
01:13:02.960 for those self-evident truths
01:13:05.280 to be accepted
01:13:06.620 universally as self-evident.
01:13:09.040 Well,
01:13:09.420 I agree that
01:13:11.100 those aren't scientific ideas.
01:13:13.760 These are the set of ideas
01:13:15.120 that I draw together
01:13:17.000 under the rubric of humanism.
01:13:19.400 It's not clear
01:13:20.220 that the self-evident right
01:13:23.440 to life, liberty,
01:13:24.300 and the pursuit of happiness
01:13:25.320 is particularly Judeo-Christian.
01:13:27.220 In fact,
01:13:27.400 I don't think you could find that
01:13:28.740 in scripture.
01:13:30.480 And in fact,
01:13:30.960 in the Jewish tradition,
01:13:32.200 God chose the Jews.
01:13:33.620 We're the chosen people.
01:13:34.740 So the idea of universal
01:13:36.220 human worth
01:13:39.260 and well-being
01:13:40.100 is not a particularly
01:13:41.220 Jewish notion.
01:13:42.680 I don't think it's
01:13:42.960 a particularly Christian notion.
01:13:44.220 You've got to,
01:13:44.720 it's only,
01:13:45.560 you have to accept Jesus
01:13:46.860 in order to escape
01:13:48.920 eternal damnation.
01:13:51.760 None of that's
01:13:52.340 in the Declaration.
01:13:53.720 What's self-evident
01:13:54.480 is things that are
01:13:55.700 almost prerequisite
01:13:56.740 to even considering
01:13:58.180 what ought to go
01:13:59.840 into a country
01:14:00.880 or anything else.
01:14:01.800 Namely,
01:14:02.340 you've got to be alive
01:14:03.120 rather than dead.
01:14:04.700 You've got to be able
01:14:05.840 to express opinions
01:14:08.800 in order to even
01:14:09.400 have that conversation.
01:14:10.780 So you've got freedom.
01:14:12.180 Happiness,
01:14:12.940 as we know
01:14:13.720 from evolutionary considerations,
01:14:16.340 it's basically
01:14:16.920 the set of motives
01:14:17.680 that kept our ancestors alive
01:14:19.260 and allowed us
01:14:20.140 to come into existence
01:14:21.120 in the first place,
01:14:22.140 combating the grind
01:14:23.920 of entropy.
01:14:25.220 So I think
01:14:25.800 that the foundation
01:14:27.180 of that Enlightenment belief
01:14:29.180 is not particularly
01:14:29.880 Judeo-Christian,
01:14:30.640 but more existential.
01:14:32.140 It just comes from
01:14:32.840 what are the actual
01:14:33.860 prerequisites
01:14:34.700 to being an incarnate
01:14:37.160 reasoning creature.
01:14:39.140 I'm going to press you
01:14:40.100 on two elements of that.
01:14:43.180 I'm not disagreeing
01:14:45.340 with you,
01:14:45.720 by the way,
01:14:46.140 because I'm not convinced
01:14:47.300 that I'm right.
01:14:48.780 It's just that
01:14:49.540 this is how things
01:14:51.040 have laid themselves out
01:14:52.100 for me in my thinking.
01:14:53.320 I mean,
01:14:54.380 one of the things
01:14:55.120 that's very interesting
01:14:56.020 about the book of Genesis
01:14:57.340 is that it insists
01:14:58.700 that human beings
01:15:00.060 are made in the image
01:15:00.940 of God
01:15:01.500 and that that gives them
01:15:02.900 an intrinsic value
01:15:04.200 and that they're made
01:15:05.960 in the image of God
01:15:06.880 regardless of whether
01:15:08.180 they're male or female.
01:15:10.400 And then,
01:15:11.060 I know the Jews
01:15:12.300 emerge as the chosen people
01:15:14.120 in the Old Testament,
01:15:15.800 but there's also
01:15:16.500 a strong idea,
01:15:18.880 powerful conceptual idea
01:15:21.140 in the Old Testament
01:15:22.340 that emerges
01:15:23.340 that the people of Israel,
01:15:25.520 the true Israelites,
01:15:26.380 are those who wrestle
01:15:28.020 with God.
01:15:29.340 So it's like an,
01:15:29.820 it's like an,
01:15:30.640 it's like an existential adventure.
01:15:33.040 It's partly based on blood.
01:15:34.540 It's partly based on ethnicity,
01:15:35.800 but there's a conceptual idea
01:15:37.360 too there
01:15:37.880 that there's the struggle
01:15:40.100 for ethical endeavor,
01:15:42.200 let's say,
01:15:42.700 and the struggle
01:15:43.340 for the discovery
01:15:45.820 of the meaning
01:15:46.580 of existence
01:15:47.700 is actually what marks out
01:15:49.680 the true follower
01:15:50.940 of God.
01:15:51.860 And then,
01:15:53.060 as Judaism
01:15:54.820 transforms itself,
01:15:56.680 at least in some part
01:15:57.680 into Christianity,
01:15:59.120 what I see happening
01:16:00.900 is that
01:16:01.440 you,
01:16:02.780 you get the idea
01:16:03.880 that that
01:16:04.760 identity with God
01:16:07.540 that existed
01:16:09.080 in Genesis,
01:16:10.300 that,
01:16:10.600 that,
01:16:10.980 that intrinsic value
01:16:12.300 starts to become
01:16:14.020 more humanized,
01:16:15.280 that really manifests itself
01:16:16.880 sort of fully
01:16:17.620 in the Renaissance,
01:16:18.680 that,
01:16:18.960 that the religious figures
01:16:20.220 start to become
01:16:20.900 more individual
01:16:21.700 and that
01:16:22.220 the idea
01:16:23.240 that each individual
01:16:24.560 does in fact
01:16:25.600 have a divine worth
01:16:27.720 that,
01:16:29.220 that,
01:16:29.580 that keeps the state
01:16:30.980 at bay
01:16:31.760 is part of what
01:16:33.660 allows for the conception
01:16:35.340 that people
01:16:36.120 are deserving
01:16:37.300 of the chance
01:16:38.360 independently
01:16:39.200 of their ethnicity
01:16:40.300 and their race
01:16:41.100 and their creed
01:16:41.780 and their sexuality
01:16:43.120 to do such things
01:16:45.020 as pursue life,
01:16:46.340 liberty,
01:16:46.580 and happiness.
01:16:47.960 And,
01:16:48.380 see,
01:16:48.700 because otherwise
01:16:49.200 I can't see
01:16:50.460 I can't see
01:16:52.240 where the ideas
01:16:54.120 would have otherwise
01:16:54.920 emerged
01:16:55.660 during the Enlightenment.
01:16:58.500 Well,
01:16:59.000 it's,
01:17:00.040 you know,
01:17:00.380 partly the Enlightenment
01:17:01.380 came about
01:17:02.220 as a reaction
01:17:03.000 to seeing what happens
01:17:04.200 if you ground
01:17:05.220 human worth
01:17:06.300 in religious doctrines,
01:17:07.500 such as the European wars
01:17:08.580 of religion,
01:17:09.620 unprecedented carnage,
01:17:12.760 and together
01:17:13.640 with the burning
01:17:14.700 of heretics,
01:17:16.240 if you're going back
01:17:17.400 to scriptures,
01:17:18.880 particularly in the Hebrew Bible,
01:17:21.880 God commands the Israelites
01:17:23.220 to engage in one genocide
01:17:24.640 after another.
01:17:26.120 There is no prohibition
01:17:28.100 against slavery,
01:17:28.960 there's no prohibition
01:17:29.880 against rape,
01:17:30.960 there's no prohibition
01:17:31.860 against grisly forms
01:17:34.420 of torture
01:17:34.980 for victimless crimes,
01:17:37.340 like working on the Sabbath.
01:17:38.680 I don't think it's very easy
01:17:40.920 to come up
01:17:41.420 with a notion
01:17:42.940 of universal human rights
01:17:45.040 from either scripture
01:17:46.560 or Christianity.
01:17:48.320 I think the reason
01:17:49.080 that it happened
01:17:49.560 in the Enlightenment,
01:17:51.300 who knows why
01:17:52.020 anything happened
01:17:52.720 at the exact moment
01:17:54.300 that it did,
01:17:55.060 partly it was a realization
01:17:57.280 of the internecine carnage
01:18:00.960 from the wars of religion,
01:18:01.940 but also it's
01:18:03.020 when you start
01:18:04.840 to peel away
01:18:05.840 scripture
01:18:07.320 and dogma
01:18:08.460 and doctrine,
01:18:09.880 what you're left with
01:18:10.560 is our common humanity,
01:18:11.920 namely,
01:18:13.200 there's no way
01:18:14.140 that I can insist
01:18:15.080 that only my interests
01:18:17.340 are special
01:18:17.840 and you're not
01:18:18.440 because I'm me
01:18:19.160 and you're not,
01:18:20.280 and I hope for you
01:18:21.720 to take me seriously.
01:18:23.480 As soon as we engage
01:18:24.420 in any kind of discourse
01:18:26.060 with diverse other people,
01:18:29.100 what we are forced
01:18:31.900 to fall back on
01:18:34.080 is what we have in common,
01:18:35.400 namely,
01:18:35.940 we are both sentient,
01:18:37.540 we are both rational,
01:18:38.520 we have the ability
01:18:39.060 to suffer,
01:18:39.660 we have the ability
01:18:40.340 to flourish.
01:18:41.580 I'm made of the same stuff
01:18:42.880 as you,
01:18:43.380 I can't claim
01:18:44.140 that if you don't suffer,
01:18:46.600 that would be
01:18:47.360 a ludicrous proposition,
01:18:49.780 and that's what gives you
01:18:50.880 the notion
01:18:51.340 of universal human rights
01:18:53.120 and as government
01:18:53.800 as a derivative means
01:18:55.140 of pursuing those rights,
01:18:57.140 as opposed to,
01:18:58.200 say,
01:18:58.360 divinely ordained monarchy.
01:19:03.060 Now it's so hard
01:19:04.540 in discussions like this
01:19:05.680 because it depends
01:19:06.880 to some degree
01:19:07.700 on your time frame
01:19:09.280 and also on
01:19:10.180 whether you take
01:19:11.680 the broad picture
01:19:12.700 or you concentrate
01:19:13.760 on the details
01:19:14.740 to some degree
01:19:15.540 because,
01:19:16.260 like,
01:19:17.320 I mean,
01:19:17.620 I've got no objection
01:19:18.800 to any of the
01:19:19.900 descriptions
01:19:21.080 of the horrors
01:19:22.220 of religious tribalism
01:19:24.360 that you just laid out.
01:19:26.120 I mean,
01:19:26.360 I would place that
01:19:27.840 more in the domain
01:19:29.460 of tribalism
01:19:30.560 than in the domain
01:19:31.880 of religion
01:19:32.540 because I think
01:19:33.320 the tribalist tendency
01:19:34.840 is the warlike tendency
01:19:37.320 that the vast
01:19:39.440 subordinate...
01:19:40.040 Although the most severely
01:19:42.620 punished heretics
01:19:43.580 are often those
01:19:44.360 within the tribe.
01:19:45.620 Those are the ones
01:19:46.340 that you really want
01:19:47.200 to burn at the stake
01:19:47.900 as an example.
01:19:48.600 So it's not...
01:19:49.680 It is...
01:19:50.180 I think there is
01:19:50.580 tribalism.
01:19:51.160 I think there's also
01:19:52.040 a kind of
01:19:53.640 puritanical
01:19:55.700 emphasis
01:19:57.580 on pure essence
01:19:59.420 that anyone
01:20:00.020 who contaminates
01:20:01.100 the body politic
01:20:02.400 must be
01:20:03.520 expelled.
01:20:06.000 Oh, yes.
01:20:06.300 There's definitely
01:20:06.940 that.
01:20:08.760 Well, you see that
01:20:09.680 with taboo violations
01:20:10.860 in tribal systems.
01:20:13.480 Absolutely.
01:20:13.540 And authoritarianism.
01:20:14.860 Oh, definitely.
01:20:16.300 The idea that
01:20:16.480 challenging
01:20:17.020 a legitimate
01:20:18.360 authority
01:20:19.000 is itself
01:20:19.800 inherently
01:20:20.420 evil.
01:20:21.820 It's not...
01:20:22.700 The idea
01:20:23.380 that criticizing
01:20:24.880 the leader
01:20:25.440 is essential
01:20:26.500 to the health
01:20:27.180 of a nation,
01:20:28.600 which is
01:20:29.100 constitutive of
01:20:30.040 idea of democracy
01:20:31.260 and freedom of speech.
01:20:32.460 You have the ability
01:20:33.380 to make fun
01:20:33.880 of the president
01:20:34.460 on that.
01:20:35.200 Yes.
01:20:35.540 Without getting
01:20:36.520 fun of the leader.
01:20:36.740 And the moral
01:20:38.020 obligation to.
01:20:39.600 And the moral
01:20:39.960 obligation to.
01:20:40.560 And that's a deeply
01:20:41.600 unintuitive feeling
01:20:43.360 that the natural
01:20:44.520 human tendency
01:20:45.280 is to...
01:20:46.060 We know this
01:20:46.800 from the work
01:20:47.300 of people
01:20:47.700 like Rick Schwader
01:20:49.140 and John Hite
01:20:50.060 and others
01:20:51.880 is that
01:20:52.280 les majestés
01:20:53.640 attacking the king
01:20:55.120 is a mortal sin
01:20:57.620 that hierarchies
01:21:00.080 are themselves
01:21:00.940 often moralized.
01:21:02.480 That's a natural
01:21:03.220 human idea
01:21:04.080 that was
01:21:04.740 kind of,
01:21:05.440 I guess as we'd say,
01:21:06.020 deconstructed
01:21:06.900 or rejected
01:21:08.000 during the enlightenment,
01:21:09.680 including the
01:21:10.620 rationale for government
01:21:11.900 laid out in the declaration.
01:21:14.060 It's a funny thing,
01:21:15.320 eh?
01:21:15.440 Because what I see
01:21:17.120 happening is that
01:21:18.120 over the thousands
01:21:19.180 of years
01:21:19.800 of religious thinking,
01:21:21.940 let's say,
01:21:22.520 that went on
01:21:23.320 in the West,
01:21:23.980 is that
01:21:24.380 what emerged
01:21:26.080 initially
01:21:26.860 was the idea
01:21:27.740 that there was
01:21:28.760 something akin
01:21:30.300 to deity
01:21:32.120 that characterized
01:21:32.980 human beings.
01:21:34.200 And that's stated
01:21:35.100 very early on
01:21:36.040 in the religious
01:21:36.580 tradition
01:21:36.960 and in a very
01:21:37.540 surprising way,
01:21:38.480 partly because
01:21:39.040 it's distributed
01:21:39.920 between men
01:21:40.660 and women equally.
01:21:41.760 And it seems
01:21:42.260 to be partly
01:21:42.920 a creative function
01:21:44.520 in that human beings
01:21:45.680 partake in the
01:21:47.140 co-creation of existence
01:21:48.600 and partly
01:21:49.440 an ethical function
01:21:50.620 in that
01:21:51.180 we're called upon
01:21:52.520 to act courageously
01:21:54.380 and truthfully.
01:21:55.040 And that's
01:21:56.360 the core idea
01:21:57.940 I think
01:21:58.280 that's expressed
01:21:58.900 in Genesis.
01:21:59.780 And it's
01:22:01.000 a really
01:22:01.680 sophisticated
01:22:03.100 and demanding
01:22:04.340 idea.
01:22:05.320 And then I see it
01:22:06.280 like the mustard seed
01:22:08.300 that's part of the parable
01:22:10.220 in the New Testament.
01:22:11.740 It's this tiny idea
01:22:13.060 that takes root
01:22:14.360 and against
01:22:15.300 incredible odds
01:22:17.020 manifests itself
01:22:18.720 across the centuries
01:22:19.840 until what we get
01:22:21.540 is an increasing
01:22:23.340 realization
01:22:24.900 of the
01:22:25.780 universality
01:22:26.580 of humanity
01:22:27.520 and that
01:22:28.640 that constitutes
01:22:29.580 part of the
01:22:30.280 core of the
01:22:30.800 enlightenment.
01:22:31.520 And, you know,
01:22:32.860 you made arguments
01:22:34.260 about religious
01:22:35.040 sectarianism
01:22:36.080 and also
01:22:37.300 the
01:22:37.860 and
01:22:38.420 and religious
01:22:40.200 like tribal
01:22:41.420 warfare.
01:22:41.900 But the funny
01:22:43.040 thing is,
01:22:43.580 is that
01:22:43.860 I would say
01:22:45.300 that the critics
01:22:46.260 of
01:22:46.880 your defense
01:22:49.060 of the
01:22:49.740 Western
01:22:51.060 Enlightenment
01:22:51.880 Project
01:22:52.460 might
01:22:53.500 point to
01:22:54.820 the same
01:22:55.560 details
01:22:56.700 in some sense
01:22:57.580 and to say,
01:22:58.460 well,
01:22:59.360 look at the
01:23:01.020 consequences
01:23:01.760 of
01:23:02.340 enlightenment
01:23:03.640 thinking.
01:23:04.580 There's been
01:23:05.040 endless
01:23:05.640 warfare
01:23:06.740 since the
01:23:07.540 enlightenment.
01:23:08.260 There's been
01:23:08.680 a tremendous
01:23:09.380 generation
01:23:10.880 of destructive
01:23:11.900 technology.
01:23:14.100 The
01:23:14.260 the negatives
01:23:15.560 which you
01:23:17.040 can point to
01:23:17.780 case by
01:23:19.040 case and
01:23:19.700 piece by
01:23:20.180 piece
01:23:20.620 arguably
01:23:21.620 outweigh the
01:23:22.420 positives.
01:23:23.320 I mean,
01:23:23.560 I certainly
01:23:24.040 don't believe
01:23:24.620 that,
01:23:25.020 but people
01:23:25.480 could make
01:23:26.120 that case.
01:23:26.880 And so
01:23:27.280 it's so
01:23:27.900 difficult
01:23:28.520 when you're
01:23:29.140 when you're
01:23:29.540 trying to
01:23:29.860 take a
01:23:30.360 long view
01:23:31.840 of history
01:23:32.500 to decide
01:23:33.860 what
01:23:35.700 which part
01:23:37.640 of the
01:23:37.900 melody
01:23:38.280 you focus
01:23:39.040 on.
01:23:39.460 Like,
01:23:39.600 is it
01:23:39.860 the deep
01:23:40.540 or is it
01:23:42.060 the details
01:23:43.120 that seem
01:23:44.800 to work
01:23:45.520 against those
01:23:46.360 themes?
01:23:47.840 Yes,
01:23:48.060 well,
01:23:48.300 I,
01:23:48.440 of course,
01:23:49.100 talk about
01:23:49.620 the historical
01:23:50.140 trajectory of
01:23:50.840 warfare in
01:23:51.620 some detail
01:23:52.360 in The
01:23:53.020 Better Angels
01:23:53.420 of Our
01:23:53.700 Nature
01:23:53.960 with something
01:23:54.720 of a
01:23:55.640 reprise
01:23:56.240 in the
01:23:57.000 chapter on
01:23:57.720 peace and
01:23:58.360 enlightenment.
01:23:59.120 And it's
01:23:59.800 certainly not
01:24:00.200 true that
01:24:00.600 wars increased
01:24:01.240 after the
01:24:01.680 enlightenment,
01:24:02.240 but quite
01:24:02.520 the contrary.
01:24:03.880 If you look
01:24:04.420 at the
01:24:04.780 percentage of
01:24:05.520 years that
01:24:05.960 the great
01:24:06.260 powers of the
01:24:07.160 day were at
01:24:07.600 war with
01:24:07.980 each other,
01:24:08.500 it actually
01:24:08.960 goes down
01:24:10.380 starting in
01:24:11.020 the 17th
01:24:12.840 century.
01:24:14.280 Great power
01:24:14.980 wars don't
01:24:15.420 even occur
01:24:15.860 anymore.
01:24:16.460 We haven't
01:24:16.760 had one for
01:24:17.220 about 65
01:24:18.180 years.
01:24:19.400 But what
01:24:19.840 happened was
01:24:21.000 that in the
01:24:22.040 centuries after
01:24:23.080 the 18th
01:24:24.480 century, there
01:24:24.860 were two trends
01:24:25.460 that went in
01:24:25.840 opposite directions,
01:24:26.940 which is that
01:24:27.640 wars actually got
01:24:28.540 shorter and
01:24:29.280 less frequent,
01:24:30.260 but the ones
01:24:30.620 that did occur
01:24:31.480 got deadlier.
01:24:33.040 That is,
01:24:33.940 countries got
01:24:34.800 more efficient
01:24:35.500 at killing
01:24:36.120 more people
01:24:36.700 in a shorter
01:24:37.240 amount of
01:24:37.740 time, partly
01:24:38.660 because of
01:24:39.540 weaponry, but
01:24:41.220 also just
01:24:41.580 because of
01:24:42.420 social organization
01:24:43.600 being able to
01:24:44.300 conscript large
01:24:45.080 numbers of
01:24:45.800 young men and
01:24:46.840 then to send
01:24:47.400 them to the
01:24:47.760 battlefield as
01:24:48.420 cannon fodder.
01:24:49.580 And a lot of
01:24:50.640 that was driven
01:24:51.260 actually by
01:24:51.960 counter-enlightened
01:24:53.120 ideologies of
01:24:54.460 nationalism, which
01:24:55.760 went to both
01:24:57.120 world wars.
01:24:59.100 Then, starting in
01:25:00.480 1945, for the
01:25:01.720 first time, wars
01:25:02.820 became less
01:25:03.600 frequent, shorter,
01:25:05.860 and less
01:25:06.560 deadly.
01:25:07.400 And so, the
01:25:08.420 first time in, I
01:25:09.800 think, in human
01:25:10.240 history that you
01:25:11.120 have a systematic
01:25:11.800 move away from
01:25:13.020 war here, occurred
01:25:14.500 after 1945, with
01:25:16.080 the formation of
01:25:16.800 the United
01:25:17.120 Nations, with a
01:25:18.520 kind of unprecedented
01:25:20.360 universalism, a
01:25:22.140 kind of global
01:25:22.780 consciousness, including
01:25:24.280 all races, all
01:25:26.000 religions, still
01:25:27.260 not, of course,
01:25:28.040 universally accepted,
01:25:29.340 but even as an
01:25:29.940 aspiration.
01:25:31.320 That's something
01:25:31.920 that's pretty new
01:25:32.600 in human history.
01:25:33.740 It did not occur
01:25:34.560 during the time of
01:25:35.880 the European
01:25:36.820 Enlightenment in
01:25:37.500 the 18th century,
01:25:38.740 but I think it
01:25:39.920 was the
01:25:41.160 consolidation of
01:25:43.560 Enlightenment
01:25:44.420 ideals, including
01:25:45.560 the formation of
01:25:46.560 the United Nations,
01:25:47.440 which was called
01:25:48.500 for by Immanuel
01:25:49.820 Kant, and it
01:25:50.480 was as a
01:25:50.960 perpetual peace,
01:25:52.260 which, of course,
01:25:52.620 did not happen at
01:25:53.320 the time, but
01:25:54.400 we've enjoyed it
01:25:55.440 since.
01:25:56.060 And crucially, for
01:25:57.000 the Universal
01:25:57.680 Declaration of Human
01:25:58.780 Rights, the United
01:25:59.620 Nations, now the
01:26:01.100 Sustainable Development
01:26:02.080 Goals, you have
01:26:03.260 people coming
01:26:03.880 together, nations
01:26:05.100 coming together,
01:26:06.160 some of them not
01:26:06.980 from a Judeo-Christian
01:26:08.380 tradition by any
01:26:09.620 means, but who can
01:26:10.780 agree on things
01:26:11.700 like, well, it's
01:26:12.340 really better if
01:26:13.220 people live and if
01:26:14.820 they die of disease,
01:26:15.780 it's better if
01:26:16.320 babies don't die in
01:26:18.000 their first year of
01:26:19.000 life, it's better if
01:26:20.160 kids go to school,
01:26:21.140 it's better if we
01:26:21.680 don't go to war,
01:26:22.660 it's better if we
01:26:23.040 have a clean
01:26:23.440 environment, all
01:26:24.380 these things that
01:26:24.820 we have in common
01:26:25.600 because we're human
01:26:26.760 beings.
01:26:28.080 So we can agree
01:26:28.840 on the lack of
01:26:31.480 utility of
01:26:32.360 unnecessary suffering,
01:26:34.380 something like that,
01:26:35.220 and maybe even the
01:26:36.320 lack of the utility
01:26:38.000 of unnecessary
01:26:39.660 malevolence.
01:26:41.340 That's something.
01:26:41.600 Yes, you don't
01:26:42.060 need to be, all
01:26:42.960 you need to do to
01:26:44.120 endorse that is be
01:26:45.080 a human and have
01:26:46.140 the ability to
01:26:47.100 suffer or to
01:26:48.660 flourish.
01:26:50.100 So, okay, so let
01:26:51.640 me switch this a bit
01:26:52.620 if you don't mind,
01:26:54.080 and I'd like to
01:26:55.540 speak a bit more
01:26:57.120 personally, if you
01:26:58.800 would.
01:27:01.020 What's the
01:27:01.780 consequence for
01:27:03.580 you over the
01:27:06.020 last year of this
01:27:08.040 increasing public
01:27:09.700 exposure and also
01:27:11.580 controversy, and
01:27:12.800 what do you think,
01:27:13.860 just out of
01:27:14.740 curiosity, about
01:27:16.320 being associated
01:27:17.340 with this loose
01:27:19.240 IDW, you know,
01:27:21.900 which no one
01:27:23.400 really joined, but
01:27:24.920 just emerged out
01:27:26.000 of the blue.
01:27:26.500 I mean, I think
01:27:27.040 with all the
01:27:27.740 people in it, in
01:27:28.660 some sense, you're
01:27:29.420 the most surprising
01:27:30.680 member, because,
01:27:32.920 well.
01:27:33.500 Well, yes, you
01:27:34.640 may be the
01:27:35.320 prototype, but,
01:27:37.840 and I am more
01:27:39.940 peripheral.
01:27:40.260 I think it just
01:27:40.640 comes from being
01:27:41.400 just not
01:27:44.020 having drunk
01:27:45.800 the Kool-Aid
01:27:46.420 of political
01:27:48.560 correctness,
01:27:49.660 identitarianism,
01:27:50.780 social justice,
01:27:51.660 warfare,
01:27:53.060 wokeness.
01:27:53.800 As long as you're
01:27:54.560 not part of that
01:27:56.420 tribe, as long as
01:27:57.120 you haven't signed
01:27:57.640 up to that, then
01:27:59.060 you get associated
01:28:00.140 with this, of
01:28:01.860 course, whimsical,
01:28:02.940 humorous entity
01:28:03.800 called the
01:28:04.400 intellectual dark
01:28:05.440 web.
01:28:06.040 Right, right.
01:28:06.540 social union.
01:28:07.180 I mean, it's a
01:28:08.620 joke, because, of
01:28:09.260 course, there is a
01:28:10.020 dark web.
01:28:10.700 Right.
01:28:11.560 Well, it's a joke
01:28:12.580 in all sorts of
01:28:13.460 ways, because it's
01:28:14.320 a ridiculous club.
01:28:15.740 I mean, I've been
01:28:16.600 trying to figure out
01:28:17.600 what characterizes the
01:28:19.860 people who've been
01:28:20.780 loosely aggregated in
01:28:22.780 that association, you
01:28:25.160 know, and I think
01:28:26.500 that a certain
01:28:29.040 fortunate independence
01:28:32.100 is part of it.
01:28:33.840 You know, that
01:28:34.380 almost everyone in
01:28:35.620 that group has
01:28:36.540 their own means of
01:28:39.160 support.
01:28:39.900 I mean, you're a
01:28:40.460 university professor,
01:28:41.500 obviously, and that
01:28:42.220 could be taken from
01:28:43.080 you, but I mean, you
01:28:44.460 have nine books, and
01:28:46.060 many of them are
01:28:46.700 bestsellers, and like,
01:28:48.160 you have the means
01:28:50.360 to keep yourself
01:28:51.800 operating as an
01:28:52.860 independent being
01:28:53.960 without being
01:28:56.000 dependent on any
01:28:58.100 necessary external
01:28:59.960 bureaucracy.
01:29:01.420 And I also have
01:29:02.420 tenure, which means
01:29:03.840 that I'm a little
01:29:04.740 harder to fire than
01:29:05.840 most people in most
01:29:06.780 jobs.
01:29:07.140 Right, right,
01:29:07.760 exactly.
01:29:08.860 So that gives me a
01:29:09.740 certain, I used to be
01:29:10.820 cynical about tenure,
01:29:12.900 as kind of a unique
01:29:14.940 sinecure of university
01:29:16.180 professors, but there
01:29:17.340 is part of the
01:29:18.140 initial rationale,
01:29:19.460 maybe giving you
01:29:20.520 some degree of
01:29:21.480 intellectual independence,
01:29:22.840 I'm really coming to
01:29:23.780 appreciate.
01:29:24.780 Oh, yes.
01:29:25.980 Tenure is like the
01:29:26.820 Canadian Senate.
01:29:28.680 It's useless, except
01:29:30.360 when it's absolutely
01:29:31.320 necessary.
01:29:32.920 Right.
01:29:33.880 Yeah, yeah.
01:29:34.640 I think it's really,
01:29:35.540 and politically, of
01:29:36.680 course, the people in
01:29:37.460 this, I mean, there
01:29:37.960 is no, as we said,
01:29:39.540 there is no such
01:29:40.080 thing as an
01:29:40.740 intellectual dark
01:29:41.580 web, except it's a
01:29:42.400 kind of joke.
01:29:43.360 But the people who
01:29:44.040 are connected to it,
01:29:46.320 I think, have a
01:29:47.280 certain amount of
01:29:48.140 unwillingness to
01:29:50.520 kowtow or bow
01:29:52.860 down to some of
01:29:53.920 the pieties that
01:29:55.780 have become
01:29:56.600 orthodox on many
01:29:58.340 college campuses,
01:29:59.540 because politically,
01:30:00.640 the people who've been
01:30:01.780 connected to it are
01:30:02.900 pretty diverse.
01:30:04.740 They're very diverse.
01:30:06.480 They're very, there's
01:30:07.620 almost the complete
01:30:09.180 range, except for the
01:30:11.240 absence of people who
01:30:12.380 are politically correct.
01:30:13.920 The other thing that's
01:30:14.860 very interesting about
01:30:15.860 the group, two other
01:30:16.720 things I would say is
01:30:17.780 that they've been very
01:30:19.680 effective users of
01:30:21.480 social media, and
01:30:23.980 also, they don't think
01:30:26.260 that their audience is
01:30:27.380 stupid.
01:30:29.200 You know, yes, I think
01:30:30.840 that's, I think that is,
01:30:32.380 that is true, and it's
01:30:34.600 one of the keys to
01:30:36.060 effective teaching, to
01:30:37.240 effective communication.
01:30:38.980 One of the first bits of
01:30:41.300 advice I got when I made
01:30:42.960 the crossover from
01:30:44.020 academia to popular
01:30:45.520 writing, from an editor
01:30:46.920 at a university press,
01:30:48.120 he told me the mistake
01:30:49.460 that academics often
01:30:50.580 make when they try to
01:30:52.500 reach a broad audience
01:30:53.300 is they talk down.
01:30:54.420 They assume that their
01:30:55.300 audience is not as
01:30:56.340 upright as they are.
01:30:57.780 So the key is, assume
01:30:59.220 that your audience is
01:31:00.400 your intellectual peer,
01:31:02.280 but they happen not to
01:31:03.100 know some stuff that you
01:31:04.000 know.
01:31:04.400 Right.
01:31:04.580 I offer that also as
01:31:06.020 writing advice in my
01:31:07.540 book, The Sense of
01:31:08.460 Style, but you're also
01:31:10.060 right that this, that
01:31:11.440 the independent-minded
01:31:12.700 people that we've been
01:31:15.160 talking about try not to
01:31:17.640 use insults and put
01:31:20.360 downs, not as a means
01:31:22.500 of argument, not even
01:31:23.660 so much the audience
01:31:26.180 being stupider, but
01:31:27.060 rather being evil, that
01:31:28.200 if you don't agree with
01:31:29.080 me, then you are a
01:31:31.220 reprehensible human
01:31:33.260 being.
01:31:33.640 Yeah, that's definitely
01:31:35.160 a mistake within the
01:31:38.720 bounds of that group,
01:31:40.040 let's say.
01:31:40.480 I think it's a brand
01:31:41.680 mistake, let's say,
01:31:42.920 whenever that happens.
01:31:45.160 Well, and of course,
01:31:46.100 that defines the kind
01:31:48.340 of politically correct
01:31:52.340 social justice warfare
01:31:53.960 that these people are
01:31:55.780 reacting to, namely that
01:31:57.840 the mode of argument
01:32:00.100 that I think we're all
01:32:00.920 trying to distance
01:32:02.300 ourselves from, is that
01:32:03.680 if you don't agree
01:32:04.320 with me, then you are
01:32:05.600 a moral creme.
01:32:07.040 Right, right.
01:32:07.940 And so, okay, so now
01:32:09.140 what's been the
01:32:10.420 personal consequences
01:32:11.660 for you?
01:32:12.260 Like, you've been at
01:32:12.980 the center of a fair
01:32:14.460 bit of controversy, and
01:32:16.200 I mean, it's very
01:32:17.580 difficult to have a
01:32:18.940 series of best-selling
01:32:20.380 books, for example, and
01:32:21.760 speaking tours and so
01:32:22.920 forth, without being
01:32:24.940 controversial in some
01:32:26.460 way, because it
01:32:27.440 probably indicates that
01:32:28.680 you're not saying
01:32:29.440 anything of any real
01:32:31.000 novelty or importance,
01:32:32.640 but how has it
01:32:34.260 affected you?
01:32:35.360 And has it been a
01:32:36.520 net positive or a
01:32:37.700 net negative?
01:32:38.940 And how are people
01:32:39.760 reacting to you?
01:32:41.880 Oh, it's unquestionably
01:32:43.180 a net positive, and at
01:32:45.560 least so far, I have
01:32:46.600 certainly escaped the
01:32:48.680 outrage mobs that we
01:32:51.140 know can be aroused by
01:32:54.100 advancing heterodox
01:32:58.320 opinions.
01:32:59.400 I have gotten, you
01:33:00.480 know, some anger.
01:33:01.360 I have, I was subject
01:33:03.060 of a rather bizarre
01:33:04.080 incident where a panel
01:33:06.040 that I was on called
01:33:07.800 the political correctness
01:33:09.300 like Donald Trump, where
01:33:11.320 some of my remarks were
01:33:13.860 spliced in a video that
01:33:16.260 was then cited by the
01:33:19.060 alt-right and neo-Nazis,
01:33:23.000 which led to a kind of
01:33:24.480 denunciation on the left.
01:33:26.220 Fortunately, in my case, I
01:33:27.320 can't complain because the
01:33:28.180 New York Times stepped
01:33:29.280 into my defense.
01:33:30.700 Jesse Singal wrote an
01:33:32.240 op-ed with my photo
01:33:34.280 adorning it, saying how
01:33:36.140 social media are making
01:33:37.200 us stupid, and using the
01:33:38.780 attack on me as evidence
01:33:40.220 for the pathology of
01:33:41.320 social media.
01:33:42.640 So I came out of that
01:33:43.780 unscathed.
01:33:46.920 On the other hand, I do
01:33:47.860 live in some degree of
01:33:49.860 fear that the mob could
01:33:51.380 turn on me at any moment.
01:33:52.740 There was a wonderful
01:33:54.720 essay by Neil Ferguson
01:33:57.720 expressing a similar fear.
01:33:59.840 He said, well, my wife,
01:34:01.560 who's made it of braver
01:34:03.700 stuff than I, tells me not
01:34:05.020 to worry.
01:34:06.020 Yeah, well, she's made it
01:34:07.220 braver stuff than almost
01:34:08.480 anyone else in the world,
01:34:09.860 so I don't know.
01:34:10.420 Well, that was the in-joke,
01:34:11.980 of course, his wife being
01:34:12.900 Ayaan Hirsi, one of the
01:34:14.820 bravest people on the
01:34:15.940 planet.
01:34:16.320 But that was a sly little
01:34:18.040 bit of humor for those who
01:34:19.240 know his personal situation.
01:34:20.520 And a reminder that people
01:34:22.620 have withstood much fiercer
01:34:24.820 attacks than any of us have
01:34:26.560 to worry about.
01:34:28.180 Right, right, right.
01:34:29.440 And how are people responding
01:34:30.980 to you in public?
01:34:32.420 Like, when you're out in
01:34:33.320 public, I mean, you're a
01:34:34.740 rather striking figure.
01:34:36.560 You're easy to recognize.
01:34:38.540 What happens when you go out?
01:34:42.480 How do people respond to you?
01:34:44.960 Oh, it's positive.
01:34:47.080 I have nothing to complain
01:34:47.840 about.
01:34:48.780 People recognize me, and I
01:34:50.260 expect after this, what we're
01:34:52.800 doing now airs, that I'll be
01:34:54.140 recognized even more, because
01:34:56.460 I know that you have quite a
01:34:58.440 broad and diverse following.
01:35:01.680 But also in person, as we know,
01:35:04.520 people tend to often mitigate
01:35:06.540 the kind of animosity that is
01:35:08.480 easy to express when you're
01:35:11.140 anonymous, behind the shield
01:35:15.340 of social media, removing anonymity.
01:35:18.220 But people are much more civil
01:35:20.440 face-to-face.
01:35:21.920 I have gotten, you know, a lot
01:35:23.920 of warmth.
01:35:27.140 I've gotten, to my surprise, a
01:35:28.780 number of people writing to me
01:35:30.020 saying that I've been good for
01:35:31.240 their mental health.
01:35:32.880 My Quillette essay, even though
01:35:35.580 technically, like you, I'm a
01:35:37.180 psychologist.
01:35:37.960 Unlike you, I'm not a clinical
01:35:39.140 psychologist.
01:35:39.840 I have no confidence whatsoever
01:35:42.120 in treating anxiety, depression,
01:35:45.280 psychological problems.
01:35:46.540 And I even have to explain to
01:35:48.480 people when they ask me what I do
01:35:49.860 for a living.
01:35:50.700 I tend to avoid saying I'm a
01:35:52.140 psychologist, even though that's
01:35:53.340 what my degree is.
01:35:54.380 Right.
01:35:55.440 Because people assume that I'm a
01:35:56.900 clinical psychologist, which I'm
01:35:58.380 not.
01:35:58.660 So I sometimes say I'm a
01:35:59.360 cognitive scientist, because no
01:36:00.800 one has any idea what that
01:36:01.940 means.
01:36:02.220 You know, I think you've been
01:36:03.520 good for my mental health.
01:36:05.340 Well, that's what some people,
01:36:06.500 for the first time in my life, I
01:36:08.300 say I've kind of earned that
01:36:09.440 credential, but some people write
01:36:10.860 in it and they say, I just, I'm
01:36:12.120 so dejected and discouraged and
01:36:14.840 downtrodden by reading the news
01:36:16.460 that when I come across the data
01:36:18.580 that you've presented, that
01:36:19.660 humanity has been improving, it
01:36:21.580 actually is good for my mental
01:36:23.160 health.
01:36:23.400 I don't feel as despairing for
01:36:25.620 my children, for myself, for the
01:36:28.480 future of my country.
01:36:30.100 Well, that's a big deal.
01:36:31.580 And well, and you're also, it's
01:36:32.680 more than that.
01:36:33.800 It's not, it's not only that
01:36:35.040 you're saying it's deeper than
01:36:37.220 that for a couple of reasons.
01:36:39.340 I mean, first of all, you're a
01:36:41.880 credible source and like naive
01:36:45.940 optimism is worse than cynical
01:36:49.340 pessimism, I think, because it's
01:36:52.240 too fragile, it's too easily
01:36:54.140 damaged, but your optimism isn't
01:36:57.520 naive, it's, it's data-based and
01:37:00.700 it's well-researched.
01:37:02.020 And so you can go in there as a
01:37:03.880 pessimist, like as a powerful
01:37:06.140 pessimist, and you can think, oh,
01:37:08.460 oh, well, look at that, look at that
01:37:11.600 and, and look at that.
01:37:12.960 And, and it's not just one or two
01:37:15.260 things, it's enough things so that
01:37:17.720 it starts to be a story and you
01:37:19.580 think, oh, well, maybe we're not
01:37:21.520 going to hell in a handbasket quite
01:37:23.140 as fast as we thought we were.
01:37:25.080 And then, at least not necessarily,
01:37:26.360 yeah.
01:37:26.720 Well, at least not necessarily.
01:37:28.180 Yes, well, and that's, that's
01:37:29.700 something, but then there's a, there's
01:37:31.600 an, an implicit message there too,
01:37:35.000 which is perhaps the
01:37:36.840 enlightenment message itself, which
01:37:38.820 is that, well, not only are things
01:37:41.240 getting better, but human beings are
01:37:44.880 the sorts of creatures that could
01:37:46.840 make things better if they chose to.
01:37:49.500 And that's, and that's a radical
01:37:53.280 message, I think.
01:37:54.360 I mean, one of the things I've
01:37:56.160 noticed about what people respond
01:37:58.500 positively to in my lectures is my
01:38:02.040 insistence to them that they could be,
01:38:06.980 they may not be, but they could be
01:38:10.000 powerful forces for good and powerful
01:38:13.360 beyond, really, in some ways, beyond
01:38:15.580 the limits of their imagination, is
01:38:17.460 that human beings unbounded, rationally,
01:38:21.380 even from an enlightenment
01:38:22.320 perspective, independent of the
01:38:23.840 metaphysics, is that we do have the
01:38:26.220 capacity to address incredibly
01:38:28.820 complicated problems, and with good
01:38:31.660 will, and caution, and a certain degree
01:38:34.500 of intelligence, we can actually make
01:38:38.060 them better.
01:38:38.800 And I think that that's a deeply
01:38:40.660 positive message, especially for young
01:38:44.080 people who've been raised on nothing
01:38:46.520 but a steady diet of disenfranchisement
01:38:49.800 and nihilistic pessimism about the
01:38:52.960 future.
01:38:54.700 Indeed.
01:38:55.600 And it has been a source of tension in
01:38:59.340 my own intellectual autobiography, because,
01:39:03.100 and I note that I'm not an optimist about
01:39:06.820 the human condition by ideology or by
01:39:09.960 background.
01:39:10.560 In fact, I wrote a book called The Blank
01:39:11.900 Slate on the modern denial of human
01:39:14.220 nature, arguing that we're not blank
01:39:16.360 slates, that we are equipped by
01:39:18.340 evolution with a lot of motives, some
01:39:21.140 of which are not so pleasant, not so
01:39:24.160 conducive to human well-being, like
01:39:25.760 tribalism, like authoritarianism, like
01:39:28.360 greed, like cognitive illusions, like
01:39:31.100 self-exception.
01:39:32.760 But that what shifted my worldview is
01:39:36.080 really coming across data that came as
01:39:37.900 much a surprise to me as to anyone,
01:39:41.020 showing that violence has gone down and
01:39:43.040 poverty has gone down and prosperity has
01:39:45.020 gone up, and then trying to resolve that
01:39:47.460 tension.
01:39:48.120 How could we as a species both burn each
01:39:51.740 other alive and engage in rape and
01:39:54.680 discrimination and genocide, but on the
01:39:56.740 other hand, somehow manage to power this
01:39:59.100 improvement?
01:39:59.920 And I think it comes from the fact that
01:40:01.480 we're cognitively and psychologically
01:40:03.940 complex.
01:40:04.940 We have a number of ugly motives, but we
01:40:07.460 also have some modicum of empathy.
01:40:10.060 We have self-control, we have cognitive
01:40:12.840 processes that allow us to reason, we have
01:40:14.980 language that allows us to share our
01:40:16.740 ideas.
01:40:17.640 And if we manage to channel those with the
01:40:19.620 right institutions, with a commitment to
01:40:22.000 free speech, to democracy, to science, to
01:40:25.900 empirical testing, then we can mobilize the
01:40:29.620 better angels of our nature, as Abraham put
01:40:32.480 them, and kind of eke out bits of improvement
01:40:35.320 despite our worst selves.
01:40:36.880 I think it's quite comical that you used a
01:40:39.800 religious analogy for that title.
01:40:42.880 I mean, because I think part of the case
01:40:45.200 that you're making, and I would say this is a
01:40:48.380 narrative case to some degree, is that
01:40:50.400 despite the depth of human depravity, which
01:40:53.960 is definitely something that you did discuss in
01:40:56.620 the blank slate, although not as intensely as
01:41:00.000 some people have, that good, so to speak, has the
01:41:05.160 capacity to triumph over evil and sorrow, despite
01:41:09.760 the depths of both of those.
01:41:12.180 And that is also an unbelievably optimistic
01:41:14.660 message, because I don't believe that you can
01:41:17.340 be a credible voice for optimism.
01:41:21.720 And what would you say, someone who celebrates the
01:41:29.680 human spirit, unless you're very cognizant of its
01:41:33.680 depths, because otherwise you're just not informed.
01:41:37.500 You're just battling the right enemy.
01:41:40.000 That's right.
01:41:40.720 And you have to, I think, value the hard-won human
01:41:45.520 institutions and norms that don't necessarily come
01:41:50.140 naturally to us, like the rule of law, like free
01:41:54.660 speech, like empirical, basing arguments on empirical
01:41:58.500 data, things that have to be inculcated every generation.
01:42:03.060 We're not doing such a good job with this generation, I
01:42:05.700 sometimes think.
01:42:06.800 But it's because of these games that we've invented that
01:42:10.820 bring out our better side, that we have been able to overcome
01:42:14.880 our inner demons, our darker angels.
01:42:19.760 I wonder sometimes, too, I wonder what you think about
01:42:22.340 this.
01:42:22.720 I mean, you know, when I grew up, and when you grew
01:42:26.100 up, you know, from the end of World War II until, let's
01:42:31.920 say, 1989, there were real reasons for apocalyptic
01:42:37.160 thinking, in my estimation.
01:42:39.180 You know, the massive buildup of the thermonuclear arsenal and
01:42:45.600 the constant tension and testing between, especially the
01:42:51.080 Soviets and the Western Bloc.
01:42:54.680 The times when we came so close to nuclear annihilation.
01:42:58.720 And I think for several generations, and then also in the 60s, the discovery of
01:43:06.060 human beings as a, as let's say, a planet transforming force on an
01:43:10.720 ecological level.
01:43:12.020 I think there were real reasons for people to be terrified into a kind of
01:43:16.920 apocalyptic pessimism.
01:43:18.560 And I kind of wonder sometimes if one of the things that you're not battling
01:43:23.740 against is, what would you say, is the revelation that that period of time in
01:43:31.500 some sense is over, is that that particular apocalypse, God willing, has been
01:43:37.640 reduced substantially in probability.
01:43:41.860 And we can now start to think about the future in a positive way again.
01:43:46.880 But man, it was 45 years, you know, and not counting World War II, which I think we
01:43:53.080 probably shouldn't count.
01:43:54.640 It was 45 years where everyone was, well, being, being taught that if they put
01:44:00.720 themselves under their desks as elementary school, that was going to protect them from
01:44:05.260 an atomic blast.
01:44:06.520 And so I wonder if it was coming out of that.
01:44:11.160 No, that's true.
01:44:11.880 I think 1989 truly was momentous.
01:44:15.040 It was the end of the Cold War and the worst threats of nuclear exchange.
01:44:20.440 It also led to a decline in the number of proxy wars in Asia and Africa and South
01:44:26.340 America, which people don't appreciate.
01:44:28.680 You look at the horrific wars that are taking place now, such as in Yemen and Syria, and
01:44:33.580 you might think that we're in an unprecedented area of warfare.
01:44:37.500 But this is nothing compared to the 70s and 80s, where Africa was in flames.
01:44:41.640 There were, the war in Vietnam killed far more people than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
01:44:46.540 and Syria combined.
01:44:49.000 There were threats like the Yom Kippur War in 1973.
01:44:53.440 Richard Nixon raised the level of nuclear alerts, something that has not happened since.
01:44:59.600 These really were perilous times.
01:45:01.200 Apart from the Cold War, Iran and Iraq fought their version of World War I, which threatened
01:45:07.980 to choke the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf, bringing the world economy to a halt.
01:45:12.820 And we lived through that.
01:45:14.960 So people forget how awful the 60s, 70s, and 80s were in terms of...
01:45:21.200 Well, and there was also the fact that, well, in Africa and in South America, I would say
01:45:26.680 in particular, those proxy wars also being also ideological wars absolutely stifled economic
01:45:36.820 development, both in South America and in Africa.
01:45:39.740 And I think one of the reasons that we've seen this unparalleled improvement in economic
01:45:45.500 conditions, let's say, well, it's obvious in China because of their market reforms, but
01:45:51.240 in Africa is at least in part because there aren't, there isn't a coterie of insane Soviet
01:45:58.620 dictators dictating economic policy to African leaders that's absolutely counterproductive
01:46:05.620 and pathological.
01:46:06.620 And so just by removing that source of trouble, much less adding anything new and good, just
01:46:15.260 by getting rid of that source of trouble, the Africans have been able to free themselves
01:46:20.640 from the worst excesses of the most foolish economic theories of the 20th century.
01:46:25.540 And I really think that started to manifest itself in the 2000s.
01:46:29.860 That was part of it.
01:46:31.000 And there is, each effect is the others, so that poverty makes civil war more likely and
01:46:37.560 vice versa, because war is, has been called development in reverse, and that nothing is worse for an
01:46:43.240 economy than if schools are being blown up and people pulled out of their offices and shot
01:46:48.420 and institutions destroyed as quickly as they can be built, markets, transportation networks.
01:46:54.000 But also, if countries are poor, and then it's true that Marxist economic ideas make countries
01:46:59.580 poor, then it becomes more attractive to join militias and rebel groups because the government
01:47:06.700 isn't doing anything for you.
01:47:08.200 And you've got a lot of young men who have nothing better to do with their time.
01:47:13.060 No loyalty is commanded by the incompetent government.
01:47:15.520 And then, of course, both superpowers would fund the insurgency movements that opposed whichever
01:47:25.140 government the other superpower was supporting.
01:47:28.660 So...
01:47:29.060 Right, and amplifying the problem, the consequences.
01:47:31.620 Amplifying the problem.
01:47:32.840 Again, people forget, when people talk about what a terrible state the world is in now, they
01:47:37.020 often forget how awful the Cold War was for the, what we now call the developing world,
01:47:43.060 then called the third world.
01:47:43.980 Right, right, right, right.
01:47:46.000 Which is...
01:47:46.740 Okay, so let me close with this, if you would.
01:47:50.600 We've had a good conversation.
01:47:53.320 What are you working on at the moment that's occupying you, that you have hopes for?
01:48:01.000 And what are your general hopes, let's say, for the next three or four years?
01:48:05.240 I mean, your career is ascendant in a manner that is true of very few people.
01:48:11.060 And you have a tremendous global impact, I would say, all things considered.
01:48:16.220 And one that, as far as I'm concerned, is overwhelmingly to the good.
01:48:22.880 What's next for you?
01:48:24.180 And what would you like to see happen in the future for you over the next few years?
01:48:29.420 Well, for the world, I would certainly like to see a pushback against authoritarian populism
01:48:35.060 and a momentum going back to the forces of humanism, of cosmopolitanism, of globalism,
01:48:44.220 of democracy against the identitarian politics, primarily of the populist right, since they
01:48:52.500 are in power, but also of the campus left.
01:48:57.540 But the renewal of the narrative that we, if we think about what we all have in common
01:49:03.680 as human beings, and if we apply our brainpower overcoming our cognitive limitations, then
01:49:10.020 we can solve problems.
01:49:12.460 Climate change being a big one, and I have my own views on climate change.
01:49:16.600 I'll express them in a New York Times editorial that's coming out in a couple of days.
01:49:21.340 Oh, I'm looking forward to that.
01:49:22.840 Is that going to get you in trouble?
01:49:25.400 Yes, it will.
01:49:27.400 And I'll leave that as something.
01:49:30.080 Okay.
01:49:30.800 Okay.
01:49:31.200 Well, I'm looking forward to that.
01:49:32.540 I'm looking forward to seeing what you think.
01:49:34.380 It's a very complicated problem.
01:49:36.000 It is a very complicated problem, and I think some of the activists are making it more complex
01:49:43.180 and making it worse.
01:49:44.740 But I'll leave that as a little enigma until people check out that article, although there
01:49:49.520 was a hint in Enlightenment Now.
01:49:51.060 Okay.
01:49:51.920 And academically?
01:49:54.440 Academically, I've done a number of studies over the years taking off from an interest in
01:49:59.520 how language is used in a social context.
01:50:02.240 For a large part of my career, I studied language, and it made me curious about why we don't just
01:50:08.220 blurt out what we mean so much at the time.
01:50:10.120 We issue veiled threats, sexual come-ons that are kind of folded between the lines.
01:50:17.180 We shilly-shally, we beat around the bush, we hint, we use euphemism.
01:50:21.120 That led me to the concept of common knowledge in the game theorist sense of I know something,
01:50:27.760 you know something, I know you know it, you know that I know it, I know that you know
01:50:31.720 that I know that you know that I know it at infinitum, or not, in cases where we each
01:50:36.440 know something, we're not so sure that the other guy knows that we know it.
01:50:39.880 I think that's hugely powerful in our social and emotional lives.
01:50:46.840 And I have a, I'm going to start writing a book in two years whose tentative title is
01:50:51.560 Don't Go There, Common Knowledge and the Science of Civility, Hypocrisy, Outrage, and Taboo.
01:50:58.400 Hmm, that sounds, that sounds, that sounds extremely interesting.
01:51:03.720 I mean, one of the things that I've observed, you know, is that people, people have a hierarchy
01:51:08.480 of values, and that the deeper in the hierarchy the value is embedded, the more experiential reality
01:51:21.780 is stabilized, the more it's united under a single goal, and the more it's brought in, out of uncertainty.
01:51:29.780 And I think we have rules that are like, don't disrupt too much of someone's map territory with
01:51:39.000 any given utterance.
01:51:40.440 And so we, we, we tend a bit to play on the periphery, you know, like, it might be too
01:51:46.140 much for you to stand, to be outright objected by, or rejected by someone that you're sexually
01:51:52.900 attracted to, you know, because it casts light on your validity as a acceptable source of
01:52:00.660 DNA, let's say, but to play a bit, and to tease a bit, and allow you to accept a carefully
01:52:13.700 and casually delivered, playful rejection, without it having to go way down into the depths
01:52:21.860 of your character.
01:52:22.860 It's like, to me, it's like a minimal necessary force doctrine.
01:52:26.600 Yes, I think there is, there is, there is a lot to that, just the ego threat of being
01:52:31.760 rejected.
01:52:33.760 But in addition, we have, we divide our social relationships into qualitatively different
01:52:39.680 categories.
01:52:41.260 And a sexual relationship really is different from a friendship or a workplace relationship.
01:52:47.040 It is an inescapable fact that often people are sexually attracted to each other, sometimes
01:52:53.420 one attracted to the other, but not, not vice versa.
01:52:56.240 Yeah, well, often.
01:52:57.860 Yeah, well, too often, indeed.
01:53:01.000 And there is something that is inherently threatening about a, say, a professional relationship or
01:53:07.120 chronic friendship, if the sex is kind of out there.
01:53:12.020 If you blurt it out, even though, paradoxically, any grown-up knows that there's got to be
01:53:18.240 sexual attraction in a lot of heterosexual relationships that are not overtly sexual.
01:53:24.560 So he might know it, she might know it, but as long as he doesn't know that she knows that
01:53:29.860 he knows that she knows that he knows it, then you can work under the fiction that the
01:53:34.860 relationship is 100% platonic or 100% professional.
01:53:38.860 There's something about blurting it out, which generates common knowledge.
01:53:42.860 Neither side can deny it if the other one knows that they know it.
01:53:45.980 Right.
01:53:47.020 Unequivocally changes the qualitative nature of the relationship.
01:53:50.820 Once it's, as we say-
01:53:51.760 Once it's out there.
01:53:53.100 It's out there.
01:53:53.680 You can't take it back.
01:53:54.880 The cat is out of the bag.
01:53:56.120 The bell can't be unrung.
01:53:57.620 And it changes the nature of the relationship.
01:53:59.280 I wonder, too, if do you think it's because the explicit statement, imagine that you have
01:54:05.440 implicit motivations, and many of them, and as implicit motivations, they have a relatively
01:54:12.560 low probability of being manifested.
01:54:15.480 But when you formalize that implicit motivation in speech, do you suppose you move the probability
01:54:24.000 of enacting it up the hierarchy and therefore pose more of a threat to the other person?
01:54:30.540 Is that the speech is somehow closer to action than the-
01:54:34.660 I think so.
01:54:35.500 But I think it's even deeper than that.
01:54:37.860 I don't think it's just sort of an analog shift along the scale.
01:54:41.040 There is something qualitatively different about blurting something out.
01:54:45.200 That's for sure.
01:54:45.840 I think we subdivide our relationships into different types, authority, subordinate, equal
01:54:58.100 sharing, and communality of interests, exchange.
01:55:04.900 And these can take place over different resources, over money, over sex, over aid.
01:55:12.400 And we are very attentive to which one holds between in a given dyad in a particular time.
01:55:20.740 Each one is a different coordination game, as the game theorists would put it, where we
01:55:24.860 both win if we're in the same cell, if we're on the same page.
01:55:29.000 But if we have discrepant understandings, then there can be, in mild form, awkwardness,
01:55:35.060 embarrassment, in the extreme case, shock, outrage, fury.
01:55:39.940 Yeah, well, it's reminiscent of the problem of dual relationships that are often talked
01:55:44.980 about in professional ethics.
01:55:47.740 You know, that it's very, of course, very difficult to have a unidimensional relationship
01:55:53.140 with someone.
01:55:54.080 But you're constantly warned ethically not to, for example, if you're a clinical psychologist,
01:55:59.480 not to make a friend out of your client.
01:56:02.940 To say nothing of a sexual partner, right?
01:56:05.000 Well, yes, to say absolutely nothing of that.
01:56:06.980 Yes, exactly, these sorts of things happen between professors and students.
01:56:11.260 And so, and I think, to some degree, they're inevitable.
01:56:14.200 But the dual relationship problem also means that you end up playing at least two games with
01:56:22.500 different outcomes.
01:56:23.440 And so, the aims become blurry and the degree of conceptual confusion also increases.
01:56:31.160 And now, I'm not exactly sure why making that explicit would necessarily make it worse,
01:56:36.480 but it does seem to be associated with, what would you call it, an unwise complexification
01:56:45.320 of the situation.
01:56:46.480 Absolutely, and this is, it is that kind of social, emotional dynamic that I will be writing
01:56:53.600 about in Don't Go There, exactly that paradox.
01:56:57.660 Well, I'm very much looking forward to reading it.
01:57:01.720 And I'd also, one of my dreams, by the way, I don't know what you think about this.
01:57:06.640 I think it would be fun, and I suppose this is perhaps an invitation, I think it would be
01:57:13.920 fun to sit down with you and Ben Shapiro and have a talk about religion and the Enlightenment
01:57:18.920 and the state of the modern world.
01:57:21.720 I don't know if you'd ever be interested in doing something like that.
01:57:24.260 Not a political discussion, you know, but because I think there is something to be fought
01:57:31.220 out in a serious way between the Enlightenment types, like you, and like Sam Harris, for
01:57:38.820 example, because I would put him in the same, well, not in the same category, but in a similar
01:57:43.280 Yeah, no, I think we're, there's a lot of overlap.
01:57:46.180 Yeah, yeah, and then people like Ben and I, who are, and maybe the Jungian analysts, for
01:57:55.120 example, who tend to view the historical movement towards increased freedom and prosperity as
01:58:04.740 a longer process.
01:58:06.680 There's really something there that needs to be hashed out, and it's really complicated,
01:58:10.800 and it might be fun to have a conversation about that at some point, if you, if you're
01:58:15.960 ever interested, and if you ever have the time.
01:58:19.720 I accept the invitation.
01:58:21.360 All right, all right.
01:58:22.060 Well, I'll talk to Ben, because I think we could have a good conversation, you know, and
01:58:27.880 scrap it out a bit, and see if we could get somewhere, because like, I really liked your
01:58:34.220 books, you know, I really liked Enlightenment now, and I regard myself in many ways as a pro-Enlightenment
01:58:41.960 figure.
01:58:42.580 I mean, I'm very scientifically minded.
01:58:44.860 I've done a lot of empirical research and learned a tremendous amount from it, and I certainly
01:58:50.760 believe that the mastery of science and technology has been a major contributor to the furtherance
01:58:59.780 of human well-being.
01:59:02.420 And there's something to be said for the solidity of an objective materialist view of the world.
01:59:08.940 But there's, there's an element there that seems to me to be troublesome, that leads to a kind
01:59:17.840 of nihilism, which, which, interestingly enough, you happen to be fighting with some of your
01:59:22.340 optimism, which is quite, quite nice to see.
01:59:25.600 But I think there's fertile discussion there to reconcile, maybe to reconcile some of the
01:59:33.900 unnecessary tension between the different streams of thought that have made Western culture,
01:59:39.740 and world culture, for that matter, the remarkable creation that it actually is.
01:59:47.300 I think that could be fruitful, indeed.
01:59:50.800 All right, well, is there anything else that you'd like to mention to people?
01:59:55.380 Any forthcoming talks you have, or public appearances, or things you'd like to draw their attention
02:00:01.480 to, or are we, are we at the end of a fruitful discussion?
02:00:08.040 The problem is we could, we could just keep going.
02:00:10.720 So where, where to start?
02:00:12.000 I will be, I, I'm often on the road, I'm often given public, public lectures and discussions.
02:00:17.980 I have one, I'm having a public event with Paul Krugman next week at Brown University.
02:00:22.680 It may not be next week by the time this circulates, maybe the past 10 months by then.
02:00:27.600 But yeah, on my website, I have a list of upcoming events.
02:00:30.120 Okay, okay, okay.
02:00:31.480 Well, it's pretty fun to see that there's a public audience for this sort of discussion, eh?
02:00:36.460 Who would have guessed?
02:00:37.020 Much more, much more than anyone would have guessed just about five years ago.
02:00:41.280 Yeah, it's, it's remarkable, it's remarkable.
02:00:44.160 For ideas and debate, absolutely.
02:00:47.180 Another reason for optimism.
02:00:49.380 Let's hope.
02:00:49.820 Very nice talking to you and thank you very much for taking the time and good luck with
02:00:55.000 your, your talks and your, and your academic endeavors and with your attempts to help people
02:01:03.800 understand that there's reason to be hopeful now and perhaps even more reason to be hopeful
02:01:12.960 in the future and about people.
02:01:16.420 That's a hell of a thing for someone who doesn't think there's a blank slate.
02:01:20.940 All right, indeed.
02:01:22.320 Thank you, Jordan.
02:01:23.080 Thanks for having me on.
02:01:24.340 Great pleasure talking with you.
02:01:26.240 Okay, thank you.
02:01:27.220 Let's stay in touch.
02:01:28.540 Bye-bye.
02:01:29.240 Bye.
02:01:29.420 If you found this conversation meaningful, you might consider picking up dad's books,
02:01:34.940 Maps of Meaning, The Architecture of Belief, or his newer bestseller, 12 Rules for Life,
02:01:39.700 An Antidote to Chaos.
02:01:41.120 Both of these works delve much deeper into the topics covered in the Jordan B. Peterson podcast.
02:01:45.960 See JordanBPeterson.com for audio, e-book, and text links, or pick up the books at your favorite
02:01:51.540 bookseller.
02:01:52.500 Really hope you enjoyed this podcast.
02:01:54.120 If you did, please leave a rating at Apple Podcasts, comment, a review, or share this
02:02:00.540 episode with a friend.
02:02:01.960 Next week's podcast is going to be a 12 Rules for Life lecture recorded from Dad's lecture
02:02:07.520 in Calgary on July 27th, 2018 at the Jack Singer Concert Hall.
02:02:12.760 Have a wonderful week.
02:02:14.020 I'll talk to you next Sunday.
02:02:15.720 Follow me on my YouTube channel, Jordan B. Peterson, on Twitter, at Jordan B. Peterson,
02:02:21.360 on Facebook, at Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, and at Instagram, at jordan.b.peterson.
02:02:28.420 Details on this show, access to my blog, information about my tour dates and other events, and my
02:02:35.100 list of recommended books can be found on my website, jordanbpeterson.com.
02:02:40.780 My online writing programs, designed to help people straighten out their pasts, understand
02:02:45.940 themselves in the present, and develop a sophisticated vision and strategy for the future, can be found
02:02:51.340 found at selfauthoring.com.
02:02:53.680 That's selfauthoring.com.
02:02:56.300 From the Westwood One Podcast Network.